Casey Anthony: Richard Hornsby says the case was ‘like living in a Jerry Springer episode HAL

My look back at the local TV analysts on the Casey Anthony case continues with Richard Hornsby. The Orlando attorney was a forceful presence on WESH-Channel 2, and he has very mixed things to say about Anthony attorney Jose Baez.

Q. Why did you want to do the analysis?

A. “Originally the reason I wanted to do analysis was that most lawyers who get on TV didn’t know what they were talking about or were inaccurate. I felt I kept all of the local analysts honest, because of my willingness to point out when other analysts were simply wrong.

“Second, my interest in the case continued because I felt Jose Baez was misrepresenting the profession. The things he was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person. I thought it was a great chance to give analysis that explained legal issues in a practical way. Some people made things more salacious than they were. It was a great opportunity to educate the public about what was going on. As it went on, the defense team was a mockery of what a criminal defense should be.”

Q. What did you get from the experience?



A. “I got a lot of crazy people calling me. I got an insight into how the media work. For all the good the media can do, you see the way resources can be wasted on people like Casey Anthony. You see what feeds the public’s appetite. My life is now back to normal. I got a lot of exposure, from a business standpoint. The exposure during the trial, that’s something I’ll never forget. Overall, I think the case was like living in a Jerry Springer episode for three years.”

Q. What was the most memorable moment for you?

A. “The verdict. I never thought she would walk in a million years. That’s one thing I’ll give Jose Baez credit. I think he did a good job overall. The pretrial preparation, the buildup to the trial itself, I thought it was an abomination of how a defense case should be handled, prepared, advanced. Once he got in the trial, he did a good job.”

Q. Anything you would have done differently?

A. “Some of the stories I commented on were not newsworthy. I have regrets about stories about taxpayer money. I was disgusted by Baez’s deal with ABC. At the same time, it wasn’t fair to attack Miss Anthony over the money. It was fair to question Baez’s motives. Baez blew the money. Casey Anthony didn’t. She was in jail. The public has to pay for these things in other cases where a defendant is declared indigent, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Q. What do you think the analysis did for the law?

A. “I did hear back from people. I wasn’t a shill for the defense or prosecution. I think people appreciated the curtains being pulled back on the court system. I felt I was able to make it so a common person could understand how big a deal this was or wasn’t. I think the Casey Anthony case was more for entertainment than educational value, as far the networks were concerned. A lot of stories were done for the ratings, not for the actual educational value.”

Q. Did you have a memorable reaction from the public?

A. “No. A lot of people would say, ‘You’re that guy on TV.’ I’d say, ‘They’ll let any guy in a monkey suit on TV.’ ”

Q. Did it do anything for your practice?

A. “The month of the verdict was the most lucrative month I’ve had in terms of new clients. The month after the trial was one of the slowest over the last two years. It comes in cycles. Did being on TV help my practice? Absolutely. It helped my exposure. I did decline to go on Nancy Grace because I didn’t agree with her.”


Add a comment
File under: Casey Anthony,Jose Baez,Nancy Grace,Richard Hornsby,WESH




Ads by Google

Morgan & Morgan Law Firm

Get the Help and Power of our Firm on Your Side. For the People.

www.forthepeople.com

CHASE Official Site

Get $125! Open a CHASE Checking Account - Learn More.

www.CHASE.com/$125Offer


Comments






Mr. Hornsby I guess I can appreciate your honesty in your answers. However, I disagree with you on Baez doing a good job during the trial. Most that watched it regularly had the same comments, “Who let this guy practice law?” he was all over the place with his questions, he degraded the witnesses(pros & def), texting People mag rep, and acting like a celeb with giving autographs and thumbs up to his “fans”. So please explain, how did he do a good job- a win doesn’t make him a good lawyer, in this case it just made him a better liar!

Reply Posted by: LuLu | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:03 PM



I really liked Hornsby. I felt he was very candid, honest and talked more like a regular person than any others. I felt he was talking to me instead of at me. Many of his articles on the case were very creative and well thought out.

Reply Posted by: Joemama | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM



Hornsby is a waffler.

Reply Posted by: emily | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM



IThe trial wasn;t a soap opera, nor was it akin to a Spinger episode, it was a DOG and Pony show. And a travesty of justice for the victim.

SHOWMANSHIP was the driving force.

Reply Posted by: TAL | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM



Wow, lying in court is “doing a good job”? Not backing up an opening statement is “doing a good job”. Tons of sidebars and a judge that had to warn Jose “not to go there” is a good job? Jeeze, didn’t Judge Perry threaten him with contempt?

Reply Posted by: cocopuff | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:22 PM



Seems it is all about “winning” in Lawyer-land….(and Charlie Sheen world)…..When you “win”, apparently, then you did a good job. Or so “they” say……….IMO.

Reply Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM



If Baez wouldnt have chosen to push the unethical and “the end justifies the means” strategy, what would have been the results? Not to defend Baez, but he came to trial to win. How he got that win, as repugnant as it might be, netted his client her freedom. He had a terrible hand dealt, good thing that two of those cards were jokers, Cindy and George. Without those two, he wouldnt have had a defense. His sleazy arguments were enough to convolute the minds of 12 questionable jurors and even the minds of Casey supporters that swallowed those defense statements as gospel, blaming the slacker George.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM



I agree, “The things he (Baez) was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person.”

Reply Posted by: mb | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM



I think unscrupulous is more accurate than untrustworthy.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM



@Randy…agree with Joe (on other thread), you are very astute. Enjoy reading your posts.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:37 PM



Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM
*
BINGO!! doesn’t matter which lawyer ya are..its all about winning..no matter the elegance or shrewdness..styles don’t matter…doesn’t make anything that may be sleazy..and less sleazy…and rarely is it really about the victim..PT or DT. JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM



I liked his imitation of nancy grace, but then again, I enjoy a good sense of humor.

Reply Posted by: EEEEELIZABETTTHHHHH!!!! | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM



I think Jose Baez did such a bad job and was so dishonest and cruel and stupid that it had an opposite affect on the jury. He was so ridiculous that they went into some kind of coma of confusion. Maybe that is considered a ‘good job’ just because he won. But, we just laughed and were in shock during the trial at his audacity. He alienated his client from her family pre trial and put the icing on the cake with his horrific accusations – It was downright evil. The only person worse than Casey as a human being is Jose and of course, C. Mason. They made sure Casey had no contact with her family for all those years and I am sure it was because they feared she would have eventually caved in and told some semblance of the truth. He wanted complete control. Now he thinks he is a STAR and that was the goal all along. He has changed my view of all defense attorneys and to me it now seems like everything they say is a lie and a fairy tale. I really never knew it was lawful to do what he did.

Reply Posted by: Natalie6 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:58 PM



misty @ 2:42….I agree, a defense lawyer does not go to trial to win a personality contest. they go there to win an acquittal or reduced sentences, that’s what they get paid to do. If all defense lawyers were to tell the truth or not manipulate whatever angle to get their clients acquitted, then what good are they? As in this case, the end justifies the means. Now, a better measure of integrity would be which clients they choose to defend as to not have to do these things sometimes they must do to win an acquittal. I do not blame Baez one bit for winning. I think he pulled something off that was unimaginable. Not only did he confuse the jury, he managed to confuse folks on the outside of the trial as well.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM



Baez was able to confuse because he was so confused himself, let’s face it, he didnt know what he was doing. I doubt he could ever duplicate this
ever again. Kind of a one hit wonder.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:27 PM



twenty @ 3:27….I doubt this trial could be duplicated again. Much was learned, hopefully, from it. One hit wonder? I hope so, I hope there isnt another child that ends up with this injustice. But for Baez, Im sure this was a great learning experience. It also gives him the experience of having tried a capital case. Whether we like it or not, Baez ended up with tremendous exposure and quite of bit of knowledge from this case. Whether he gets reprimanded, which Im sure he will evade that as well, he has done nothing but escalate in his profession. And that is all that matters to him, just as his methods and sleaziness only matter to the ultimate recipient, Casey. And even Cindy. At the end of the way, that win is more important to these two women than anybody else. not defending Baez by any means, just perhaps accepting the fact that he pulled something off that nobody thought anyone could.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 P
*
Hi cochi! glad to see you back
my opinion…its who has the best mouth piece..and at times…it does turn into a popularity contest..unfortunately..I say it comes off from both defense and prosecution as that..the victim seems to get lost every damn time…its all about that coveted win..principles be damned..morals be damned…and worst..truth be damned..again…applies to both sides! JMHO.. justice and truth for Caylee was not the focus in this trial, from either side….again..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM



Mr Hornsby’s analysis was by far my favorite because of his no non-sense attitude and tell it like it is interpretation of case law. His blog was very informative as he would post about every two weeks during and after the trial but all that stopped with his post on Aug. 25th when his comment section was totally abused. IMO the only way he could continue to post his view on the case, he would have to shut off the comment section and would not blame him if he did.

Reply Posted by: cindy66 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM



misty @ 4:13…Unfortunately, it becomes a match between the prosecution and the defense. Not between the victim and the accused. Almost like a chess game. But it is the system. And how does the saying go? All is fair in love or war….? Whatever it takes. The victims are the ones that suffer. This trial will remain in infamy, justice was not served. Perhaps it was a learning experience for future cases, we can only hope. To me, better jury selection should be a concern. Available does not equate capable. But that is easy to say when its no me awaiting to be sequestered for a month or two. Its the sad truth, I cant complain about the jury because if I would have been called, I too would have found any avenue to be excluded. But yet I find myself chastising the ones that ended up being jurors. Quite hypocritical of my part. In a way, I’m have a part of a solution but part of a problem. So how can I complain now? And still do? Its like not voting and then b*tch about the elected official.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM



ooops…last post should have said…”Im not part of a solution but part of a problem”….sorry…

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM
*
There ya go …if you don’t vote then you surely cant bit*h. I think this case in particular became personal(for all the wrong reasons) and more about a pizzing match between a couple certain individuals and all got lost..I personally also think the state presented their own case with a lets throw everything against the wall and see what sticks…I think it was overcharged and all or nothing…so…they got nothing..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM



One thing that I did say to NTS or any of his multiple nics….I would eat crow if the verdict was opposite to my thinking. I have. The trial was fair as the system allowed. I find more faults now, hindsight being 20/20, in the overly charged charges. Casey won. Or Baez won. Take your pick. I find the latter to be more accurate. Casey might have not have been found guilty, but freedom is freedom. What that freedom and how she chooses to use it, remains to be seen. Perhaps she rebounds from this and becomes a better person. Perhaps she remains status quo. But it is her life, what happens now and the cost of that “freedom” is only up to her. Very seldom does anyone get a second chance of this magnitude. Maybe her parents too have strenghtned from this experience. Time will tell. Odds are…it was a waste…a huge waste. I have faith in the natural way that life balances out. The Anthony name will surface again in some way. Hope its not about another one of them losing a life by the hands of one their family members or their own hand.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM



misty….hindsight is 20/20….surely the prosecution realizes that. Over zealous. But I thought as they did. And Im a nobody. Zero legal education or knowledge about these matters. It was just as plain to see, reason many of us feel the way we do. But the burden rellyied on the prosecution, not the defense. Sleazy or not….the prosecution did not prove its case to the jury. Whether I think Casey is guilty or not…doesnt matter. It was our trial system that ran its course to achieve this verdict. Justice? Absolutely not. Fair and legal? Very much so. Doesnt matter what I think or you think…its over. What is not over is, how will this unsanitary, uneducated, moral lacking, classless, truth less, promiscuous thief going to move forth with the added stigma as a murderer? Life is tough already without these attributes. i hope she finds a way to use this as a second chance and do something with herself.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM





Post a comment


Comments are moderated. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older and you agree to our copyright and terms of service.



Name: (required)


Email: (required) - Will not be published.


URL:

Comments:



Click the "Preview" button to preview your comment here.




My look back at the local TV analysts on the Casey Anthony case continues with Richard Hornsby. The Orlando attorney was a forceful presence on WESH-Channel 2, and he has very mixed things to say about Anthony attorney Jose Baez.

Q. Why did you want to do the analysis?

A. “Originally the reason I wanted to do analysis was that most lawyers who get on TV didn’t know what they were talking about or were inaccurate. I felt I kept all of the local analysts honest, because of my willingness to point out when other analysts were simply wrong.

“Second, my interest in the case continued because I felt Jose Baez was misrepresenting the profession. The things he was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person. I thought it was a great chance to give analysis that explained legal issues in a practical way. Some people made things more salacious than they were. It was a great opportunity to educate the public about what was going on. As it went on, the defense team was a mockery of what a criminal defense should be.”

Q. What did you get from the experience?



A. “I got a lot of crazy people calling me. I got an insight into how the media work. For all the good the media can do, you see the way resources can be wasted on people like Casey Anthony. You see what feeds the public’s appetite. My life is now back to normal. I got a lot of exposure, from a business standpoint. The exposure during the trial, that’s something I’ll never forget. Overall, I think the case was like living in a Jerry Springer episode for three years.”

Q. What was the most memorable moment for you?

A. “The verdict. I never thought she would walk in a million years. That’s one thing I’ll give Jose Baez credit. I think he did a good job overall. The pretrial preparation, the buildup to the trial itself, I thought it was an abomination of how a defense case should be handled, prepared, advanced. Once he got in the trial, he did a good job.”

Q. Anything you would have done differently?

A. “Some of the stories I commented on were not newsworthy. I have regrets about stories about taxpayer money. I was disgusted by Baez’s deal with ABC. At the same time, it wasn’t fair to attack Miss Anthony over the money. It was fair to question Baez’s motives. Baez blew the money. Casey Anthony didn’t. She was in jail. The public has to pay for these things in other cases where a defendant is declared indigent, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Q. What do you think the analysis did for the law?

A. “I did hear back from people. I wasn’t a shill for the defense or prosecution. I think people appreciated the curtains being pulled back on the court system. I felt I was able to make it so a common person could understand how big a deal this was or wasn’t. I think the Casey Anthony case was more for entertainment than educational value, as far the networks were concerned. A lot of stories were done for the ratings, not for the actual educational value.”

Q. Did you have a memorable reaction from the public?

A. “No. A lot of people would say, ‘You’re that guy on TV.’ I’d say, ‘They’ll let any guy in a monkey suit on TV.’ ”

Q. Did it do anything for your practice?

A. “The month of the verdict was the most lucrative month I’ve had in terms of new clients. The month after the trial was one of the slowest over the last two years. It comes in cycles. Did being on TV help my practice? Absolutely. It helped my exposure. I did decline to go on Nancy Grace because I didn’t agree with her.”


Add a comment
File under: Casey Anthony,Jose Baez,Nancy Grace,Richard Hornsby,WESH




Ads by Google

Morgan & Morgan Law Firm

Get the Help and Power of our Firm on Your Side. For the People.

www.forthepeople.com

CHASE Official Site

Get $125! Open a CHASE Checking Account - Learn More.

www.CHASE.com/$125Offer


Comments






Mr. Hornsby I guess I can appreciate your honesty in your answers. However, I disagree with you on Baez doing a good job during the trial. Most that watched it regularly had the same comments, “Who let this guy practice law?” he was all over the place with his questions, he degraded the witnesses(pros & def), texting People mag rep, and acting like a celeb with giving autographs and thumbs up to his “fans”. So please explain, how did he do a good job- a win doesn’t make him a good lawyer, in this case it just made him a better liar!

Reply Posted by: LuLu | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:03 PM



I really liked Hornsby. I felt he was very candid, honest and talked more like a regular person than any others. I felt he was talking to me instead of at me. Many of his articles on the case were very creative and well thought out.

Reply Posted by: Joemama | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM



Hornsby is a waffler.

Reply Posted by: emily | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM



IThe trial wasn;t a soap opera, nor was it akin to a Spinger episode, it was a DOG and Pony show. And a travesty of justice for the victim.

SHOWMANSHIP was the driving force.

Reply Posted by: TAL | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM



Wow, lying in court is “doing a good job”? Not backing up an opening statement is “doing a good job”. Tons of sidebars and a judge that had to warn Jose “not to go there” is a good job? Jeeze, didn’t Judge Perry threaten him with contempt?

Reply Posted by: cocopuff | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:22 PM



Seems it is all about “winning” in Lawyer-land….(and Charlie Sheen world)…..When you “win”, apparently, then you did a good job. Or so “they” say……….IMO.

Reply Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM



If Baez wouldnt have chosen to push the unethical and “the end justifies the means” strategy, what would have been the results? Not to defend Baez, but he came to trial to win. How he got that win, as repugnant as it might be, netted his client her freedom. He had a terrible hand dealt, good thing that two of those cards were jokers, Cindy and George. Without those two, he wouldnt have had a defense. His sleazy arguments were enough to convolute the minds of 12 questionable jurors and even the minds of Casey supporters that swallowed those defense statements as gospel, blaming the slacker George.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM



I agree, “The things he (Baez) was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person.”

Reply Posted by: mb | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM



I think unscrupulous is more accurate than untrustworthy.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM



@Randy…agree with Joe (on other thread), you are very astute. Enjoy reading your posts.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:37 PM



Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM
*
BINGO!! doesn’t matter which lawyer ya are..its all about winning..no matter the elegance or shrewdness..styles don’t matter…doesn’t make anything that may be sleazy..and less sleazy…and rarely is it really about the victim..PT or DT. JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM



I liked his imitation of nancy grace, but then again, I enjoy a good sense of humor.

Reply Posted by: EEEEELIZABETTTHHHHH!!!! | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM



I think Jose Baez did such a bad job and was so dishonest and cruel and stupid that it had an opposite affect on the jury. He was so ridiculous that they went into some kind of coma of confusion. Maybe that is considered a ‘good job’ just because he won. But, we just laughed and were in shock during the trial at his audacity. He alienated his client from her family pre trial and put the icing on the cake with his horrific accusations – It was downright evil. The only person worse than Casey as a human being is Jose and of course, C. Mason. They made sure Casey had no contact with her family for all those years and I am sure it was because they feared she would have eventually caved in and told some semblance of the truth. He wanted complete control. Now he thinks he is a STAR and that was the goal all along. He has changed my view of all defense attorneys and to me it now seems like everything they say is a lie and a fairy tale. I really never knew it was lawful to do what he did.

Reply Posted by: Natalie6 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:58 PM



misty @ 2:42….I agree, a defense lawyer does not go to trial to win a personality contest. they go there to win an acquittal or reduced sentences, that’s what they get paid to do. If all defense lawyers were to tell the truth or not manipulate whatever angle to get their clients acquitted, then what good are they? As in this case, the end justifies the means. Now, a better measure of integrity would be which clients they choose to defend as to not have to do these things sometimes they must do to win an acquittal. I do not blame Baez one bit for winning. I think he pulled something off that was unimaginable. Not only did he confuse the jury, he managed to confuse folks on the outside of the trial as well.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM



Baez was able to confuse because he was so confused himself, let’s face it, he didnt know what he was doing. I doubt he could ever duplicate this
ever again. Kind of a one hit wonder.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:27 PM



twenty @ 3:27….I doubt this trial could be duplicated again. Much was learned, hopefully, from it. One hit wonder? I hope so, I hope there isnt another child that ends up with this injustice. But for Baez, Im sure this was a great learning experience. It also gives him the experience of having tried a capital case. Whether we like it or not, Baez ended up with tremendous exposure and quite of bit of knowledge from this case. Whether he gets reprimanded, which Im sure he will evade that as well, he has done nothing but escalate in his profession. And that is all that matters to him, just as his methods and sleaziness only matter to the ultimate recipient, Casey. And even Cindy. At the end of the way, that win is more important to these two women than anybody else. not defending Baez by any means, just perhaps accepting the fact that he pulled something off that nobody thought anyone could.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 P
*
Hi cochi! glad to see you back
my opinion…its who has the best mouth piece..and at times…it does turn into a popularity contest..unfortunately..I say it comes off from both defense and prosecution as that..the victim seems to get lost every damn time…its all about that coveted win..principles be damned..morals be damned…and worst..truth be damned..again…applies to both sides! JMHO.. justice and truth for Caylee was not the focus in this trial, from either side….again..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM



Mr Hornsby’s analysis was by far my favorite because of his no non-sense attitude and tell it like it is interpretation of case law. His blog was very informative as he would post about every two weeks during and after the trial but all that stopped with his post on Aug. 25th when his comment section was totally abused. IMO the only way he could continue to post his view on the case, he would have to shut off the comment section and would not blame him if he did.

Reply Posted by: cindy66 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM



misty @ 4:13…Unfortunately, it becomes a match between the prosecution and the defense. Not between the victim and the accused. Almost like a chess game. But it is the system. And how does the saying go? All is fair in love or war….? Whatever it takes. The victims are the ones that suffer. This trial will remain in infamy, justice was not served. Perhaps it was a learning experience for future cases, we can only hope. To me, better jury selection should be a concern. Available does not equate capable. But that is easy to say when its no me awaiting to be sequestered for a month or two. Its the sad truth, I cant complain about the jury because if I would have been called, I too would have found any avenue to be excluded. But yet I find myself chastising the ones that ended up being jurors. Quite hypocritical of my part. In a way, I’m have a part of a solution but part of a problem. So how can I complain now? And still do? Its like not voting and then b*tch about the elected official.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM



ooops…last post should have said…”Im not part of a solution but part of a problem”….sorry…

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM
*
There ya go …if you don’t vote then you surely cant bit*h. I think this case in particular became personal(for all the wrong reasons) and more about a pizzing match between a couple certain individuals and all got lost..I personally also think the state presented their own case with a lets throw everything against the wall and see what sticks…I think it was overcharged and all or nothing…so…they got nothing..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM



One thing that I did say to NTS or any of his multiple nics….I would eat crow if the verdict was opposite to my thinking. I have. The trial was fair as the system allowed. I find more faults now, hindsight being 20/20, in the overly charged charges. Casey won. Or Baez won. Take your pick. I find the latter to be more accurate. Casey might have not have been found guilty, but freedom is freedom. What that freedom and how she chooses to use it, remains to be seen. Perhaps she rebounds from this and becomes a better person. Perhaps she remains status quo. But it is her life, what happens now and the cost of that “freedom” is only up to her. Very seldom does anyone get a second chance of this magnitude. Maybe her parents too have strenghtned from this experience. Time will tell. Odds are…it was a waste…a huge waste. I have faith in the natural way that life balances out. The Anthony name will surface again in some way. Hope its not about another one of them losing a life by the hands of one their family members or their own hand.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM



misty….hindsight is 20/20….surely the prosecution realizes that. Over zealous. But I thought as they did. And Im a nobody. Zero legal education or knowledge about these matters. It was just as plain to see, reason many of us feel the way we do. But the burden rellyied on the prosecution, not the defense. Sleazy or not….the prosecution did not prove its case to the jury. Whether I think Casey is guilty or not…doesnt matter. It was our trial system that ran its course to achieve this verdict. Justice? Absolutely not. Fair and legal? Very much so. Doesnt matter what I think or you think…its over. What is not over is, how will this unsanitary, uneducated, moral lacking, classless, truth less, promiscuous thief going to move forth with the added stigma as a murderer? Life is tough already without these attributes. i hope she finds a way to use this as a second chance and do something with herself.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM





Post a comment


Comments are moderated. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older and you agree to our copyright and terms of service.



Name: (required)


Email: (required) - Will not be published.


URL:

Comments:



Click the "Preview" button to preview your comment here.





My look back at the local TV analysts on the Casey Anthony case continues with Richard Hornsby. The Orlando attorney was a forceful presence on WESH-Channel 2, and he has very mixed things to say about Anthony attorney Jose Baez.

Q. Why did you want to do the analysis?

A. “Originally the reason I wanted to do analysis was that most lawyers who get on TV didn’t know what they were talking about or were inaccurate. I felt I kept all of the local analysts honest, because of my willingness to point out when other analysts were simply wrong.

“Second, my interest in the case continued because I felt Jose Baez was misrepresenting the profession. The things he was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person. I thought it was a great chance to give analysis that explained legal issues in a practical way. Some people made things more salacious than they were. It was a great opportunity to educate the public about what was going on. As it went on, the defense team was a mockery of what a criminal defense should be.”

Q. What did you get from the experience?



A. “I got a lot of crazy people calling me. I got an insight into how the media work. For all the good the media can do, you see the way resources can be wasted on people like Casey Anthony. You see what feeds the public’s appetite. My life is now back to normal. I got a lot of exposure, from a business standpoint. The exposure during the trial, that’s something I’ll never forget. Overall, I think the case was like living in a Jerry Springer episode for three years.”

Q. What was the most memorable moment for you?

A. “The verdict. I never thought she would walk in a million years. That’s one thing I’ll give Jose Baez credit. I think he did a good job overall. The pretrial preparation, the buildup to the trial itself, I thought it was an abomination of how a defense case should be handled, prepared, advanced. Once he got in the trial, he did a good job.”

Q. Anything you would have done differently?

A. “Some of the stories I commented on were not newsworthy. I have regrets about stories about taxpayer money. I was disgusted by Baez’s deal with ABC. At the same time, it wasn’t fair to attack Miss Anthony over the money. It was fair to question Baez’s motives. Baez blew the money. Casey Anthony didn’t. She was in jail. The public has to pay for these things in other cases where a defendant is declared indigent, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Q. What do you think the analysis did for the law?

A. “I did hear back from people. I wasn’t a shill for the defense or prosecution. I think people appreciated the curtains being pulled back on the court system. I felt I was able to make it so a common person could understand how big a deal this was or wasn’t. I think the Casey Anthony case was more for entertainment than educational value, as far the networks were concerned. A lot of stories were done for the ratings, not for the actual educational value.”

Q. Did you have a memorable reaction from the public?

A. “No. A lot of people would say, ‘You’re that guy on TV.’ I’d say, ‘They’ll let any guy in a monkey suit on TV.’ ”

Q. Did it do anything for your practice?

A. “The month of the verdict was the most lucrative month I’ve had in terms of new clients. The month after the trial was one of the slowest over the last two years. It comes in cycles. Did being on TV help my practice? Absolutely. It helped my exposure. I did decline to go on Nancy Grace because I didn’t agree with her.”


Add a comment
File under: Casey Anthony,Jose Baez,Nancy Grace,Richard Hornsby,WESH




Ads by Google

Morgan & Morgan Law Firm

Get the Help and Power of our Firm on Your Side. For the People.

www.forthepeople.com

CHASE Official Site

Get $125! Open a CHASE Checking Account - Learn More.

www.CHASE.com/$125Offer


Comments






Mr. Hornsby I guess I can appreciate your honesty in your answers. However, I disagree with you on Baez doing a good job during the trial. Most that watched it regularly had the same comments, “Who let this guy practice law?” he was all over the place with his questions, he degraded the witnesses(pros & def), texting People mag rep, and acting like a celeb with giving autographs and thumbs up to his “fans”. So please explain, how did he do a good job- a win doesn’t make him a good lawyer, in this case it just made him a better liar!

Reply Posted by: LuLu | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:03 PM



I really liked Hornsby. I felt he was very candid, honest and talked more like a regular person than any others. I felt he was talking to me instead of at me. Many of his articles on the case were very creative and well thought out.

Reply Posted by: Joemama | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM



Hornsby is a waffler.

Reply Posted by: emily | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM



IThe trial wasn;t a soap opera, nor was it akin to a Spinger episode, it was a DOG and Pony show. And a travesty of justice for the victim.

SHOWMANSHIP was the driving force.

Reply Posted by: TAL | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM



Wow, lying in court is “doing a good job”? Not backing up an opening statement is “doing a good job”. Tons of sidebars and a judge that had to warn Jose “not to go there” is a good job? Jeeze, didn’t Judge Perry threaten him with contempt?

Reply Posted by: cocopuff | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:22 PM



Seems it is all about “winning” in Lawyer-land….(and Charlie Sheen world)…..When you “win”, apparently, then you did a good job. Or so “they” say……….IMO.

Reply Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM



If Baez wouldnt have chosen to push the unethical and “the end justifies the means” strategy, what would have been the results? Not to defend Baez, but he came to trial to win. How he got that win, as repugnant as it might be, netted his client her freedom. He had a terrible hand dealt, good thing that two of those cards were jokers, Cindy and George. Without those two, he wouldnt have had a defense. His sleazy arguments were enough to convolute the minds of 12 questionable jurors and even the minds of Casey supporters that swallowed those defense statements as gospel, blaming the slacker George.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM



I agree, “The things he (Baez) was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person.”

Reply Posted by: mb | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM



I think unscrupulous is more accurate than untrustworthy.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM



@Randy…agree with Joe (on other thread), you are very astute. Enjoy reading your posts.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:37 PM



Posted by: Joe | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM
*
BINGO!! doesn’t matter which lawyer ya are..its all about winning..no matter the elegance or shrewdness..styles don’t matter…doesn’t make anything that may be sleazy..and less sleazy…and rarely is it really about the victim..PT or DT. JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM



I liked his imitation of nancy grace, but then again, I enjoy a good sense of humor.

Reply Posted by: EEEEELIZABETTTHHHHH!!!! | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM



I think Jose Baez did such a bad job and was so dishonest and cruel and stupid that it had an opposite affect on the jury. He was so ridiculous that they went into some kind of coma of confusion. Maybe that is considered a ‘good job’ just because he won. But, we just laughed and were in shock during the trial at his audacity. He alienated his client from her family pre trial and put the icing on the cake with his horrific accusations – It was downright evil. The only person worse than Casey as a human being is Jose and of course, C. Mason. They made sure Casey had no contact with her family for all those years and I am sure it was because they feared she would have eventually caved in and told some semblance of the truth. He wanted complete control. Now he thinks he is a STAR and that was the goal all along. He has changed my view of all defense attorneys and to me it now seems like everything they say is a lie and a fairy tale. I really never knew it was lawful to do what he did.

Reply Posted by: Natalie6 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:58 PM



misty @ 2:42….I agree, a defense lawyer does not go to trial to win a personality contest. they go there to win an acquittal or reduced sentences, that’s what they get paid to do. If all defense lawyers were to tell the truth or not manipulate whatever angle to get their clients acquitted, then what good are they? As in this case, the end justifies the means. Now, a better measure of integrity would be which clients they choose to defend as to not have to do these things sometimes they must do to win an acquittal. I do not blame Baez one bit for winning. I think he pulled something off that was unimaginable. Not only did he confuse the jury, he managed to confuse folks on the outside of the trial as well.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM



Baez was able to confuse because he was so confused himself, let’s face it, he didnt know what he was doing. I doubt he could ever duplicate this
ever again. Kind of a one hit wonder.

Reply Posted by: twenty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:27 PM



twenty @ 3:27….I doubt this trial could be duplicated again. Much was learned, hopefully, from it. One hit wonder? I hope so, I hope there isnt another child that ends up with this injustice. But for Baez, Im sure this was a great learning experience. It also gives him the experience of having tried a capital case. Whether we like it or not, Baez ended up with tremendous exposure and quite of bit of knowledge from this case. Whether he gets reprimanded, which Im sure he will evade that as well, he has done nothing but escalate in his profession. And that is all that matters to him, just as his methods and sleaziness only matter to the ultimate recipient, Casey. And even Cindy. At the end of the way, that win is more important to these two women than anybody else. not defending Baez by any means, just perhaps accepting the fact that he pulled something off that nobody thought anyone could.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:02 P
*
Hi cochi! glad to see you back
my opinion…its who has the best mouth piece..and at times…it does turn into a popularity contest..unfortunately..I say it comes off from both defense and prosecution as that..the victim seems to get lost every damn time…its all about that coveted win..principles be damned..morals be damned…and worst..truth be damned..again…applies to both sides! JMHO.. justice and truth for Caylee was not the focus in this trial, from either side….again..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM



Mr Hornsby’s analysis was by far my favorite because of his no non-sense attitude and tell it like it is interpretation of case law. His blog was very informative as he would post about every two weeks during and after the trial but all that stopped with his post on Aug. 25th when his comment section was totally abused. IMO the only way he could continue to post his view on the case, he would have to shut off the comment section and would not blame him if he did.

Reply Posted by: cindy66 | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM



misty @ 4:13…Unfortunately, it becomes a match between the prosecution and the defense. Not between the victim and the accused. Almost like a chess game. But it is the system. And how does the saying go? All is fair in love or war….? Whatever it takes. The victims are the ones that suffer. This trial will remain in infamy, justice was not served. Perhaps it was a learning experience for future cases, we can only hope. To me, better jury selection should be a concern. Available does not equate capable. But that is easy to say when its no me awaiting to be sequestered for a month or two. Its the sad truth, I cant complain about the jury because if I would have been called, I too would have found any avenue to be excluded. But yet I find myself chastising the ones that ended up being jurors. Quite hypocritical of my part. In a way, I’m have a part of a solution but part of a problem. So how can I complain now? And still do? Its like not voting and then b*tch about the elected official.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM



ooops…last post should have said…”Im not part of a solution but part of a problem”….sorry…

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM



Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM
*
There ya go …if you don’t vote then you surely cant bit*h. I think this case in particular became personal(for all the wrong reasons) and more about a pizzing match between a couple certain individuals and all got lost..I personally also think the state presented their own case with a lets throw everything against the wall and see what sticks…I think it was overcharged and all or nothing…so…they got nothing..JMHO

Reply Posted by: misty | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM



One thing that I did say to NTS or any of his multiple nics….I would eat crow if the verdict was opposite to my thinking. I have. The trial was fair as the system allowed. I find more faults now, hindsight being 20/20, in the overly charged charges. Casey won. Or Baez won. Take your pick. I find the latter to be more accurate. Casey might have not have been found guilty, but freedom is freedom. What that freedom and how she chooses to use it, remains to be seen. Perhaps she rebounds from this and becomes a better person. Perhaps she remains status quo. But it is her life, what happens now and the cost of that “freedom” is only up to her. Very seldom does anyone get a second chance of this magnitude. Maybe her parents too have strenghtned from this experience. Time will tell. Odds are…it was a waste…a huge waste. I have faith in the natural way that life balances out. The Anthony name will surface again in some way. Hope its not about another one of them losing a life by the hands of one their family members or their own hand.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM



misty….hindsight is 20/20….surely the prosecution realizes that. Over zealous. But I thought as they did. And Im a nobody. Zero legal education or knowledge about these matters. It was just as plain to see, reason many of us feel the way we do. But the burden rellyied on the prosecution, not the defense. Sleazy or not….the prosecution did not prove its case to the jury. Whether I think Casey is guilty or not…doesnt matter. It was our trial system that ran its course to achieve this verdict. Justice? Absolutely not. Fair and legal? Very much so. Doesnt matter what I think or you think…its over. What is not over is, how will this unsanitary, uneducated, moral lacking, classless, truth less, promiscuous thief going to move forth with the added stigma as a murderer? Life is tough already without these attributes. i hope she finds a way to use this as a second chance and do something with herself.

Reply Posted by: Cochi | Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM





Post a comment


Comments are moderated. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older and you agree to our copyright and terms of service.



Name: (required)


Email: (required) - Will not be published.


URL:

Comments:



Click the "Preview" button to preview your comment here.




My look back at the local TV analysts on the Casey Anthony case continues with Richard Hornsby. The Orlando attorney was a forceful presence on WESH-Channel 2, and he has very mixed things to say about Anthony attorney Jose Baez.

Q. Why did you want to do the analysis?

A. “Originally the reason I wanted to do analysis was that most lawyers who get on TV didn’t know what they were talking about or were inaccurate. I felt I kept all of the local analysts honest, because of my willingness to point out when other analysts were simply wrong.

“Second, my interest in the case continued because I felt Jose Baez was misrepresenting the profession. The things he was doing perpetuated the stereotype of the criminal defense attorney as an untrustworthy person. I thought it was a great chance to give analysis that explained legal issues in a practical way. Some people made things more salacious than they were. It was a great opportunity to educate the public about what was going on. As it went on, the defense team was a mockery of what a criminal defense should be.”

Q. What did you get from the experience?



A. “I got a lot of crazy people calling me. I got an insight into how the media work. For all the good the media can do, you see the way resources can be wasted on people like Casey Anthony. You see what feeds the public’s appetite. My life is now back to normal. I got a lot of exposure, from a business standpoint. The exposure during the trial, that’s something I’ll never forget. Overall, I think the case was like living in a Jerry Springer episode for three years.”

Q. What was the most memorable moment for you?

A. “The verdict. I never thought she would walk in a million years. That’s one thing I’ll give Jose Baez credit. I think he did a good job overall. The pretrial preparation, the buildup to the trial itself, I thought it was an abomination of how a defense case should be handled, prepared, advanced. Once he got in the trial, he did a good job.”

Q. Anything you would have done differently?

A. “Some of the stories I commented on were not newsworthy. I have regrets about stories about taxpayer money. I was disgusted by Baez’s deal with ABC. At the same time, it wasn’t fair to attack Miss Anthony over the money. It was fair to question Baez’s motives. Baez blew the money. Casey Anthony didn’t. She was in jail. The public has to pay for these things in other cases where a defendant is declared indigent, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Q. What do you think the analysis did for the law?

A. “I did hear back from people. I wasn’t a shill for the defense or prosecution. I think people appreciated the curtains being pulled back on the court system. I felt I was able to make it so a common person could understand how big a deal this was or wasn’t. I think the Casey Anthony case was more for entertainment than educational value, as far the networks were concerned. A lot of stories were done for the ratings, not for the actual educational value.”

Q. Did you have a memorable reaction from the public?

A. “No. A lot of people would say, ‘You’re that guy on TV.’ I’d say, ‘They’ll let any guy in a monkey suit on TV.’ ”

Q. Did it do anything for your practice?

A. “The month of the verdict was the most lucrative month I’ve had in terms of new clients. The month after the trial was one of the slowest over the last two years. It comes in cycles. Did being on TV help my practice? Absolutely. It helped my exposure. I did decline to go on Nancy Grace because I didn’t agree with her.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/10/casey-anthony-richard-hornsby-says-the-case-was-like-living-in-a-jerry-springer-episode.html