2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[Muzikman]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

Well, that tells me that you have more brains than the entire defense team put together! :crazy:

They sure are whiny, aren't they? :waitasec:

 

[Omachka]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

:laugh: :rolling: :laugh:

 

[Mamabear1963]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

Not strange at all, it means you can think, discern...or maybe you have magic powers.:angel:

So, now what does the defense do with this? Legally speaking that is

 

[ecs5298]

Well, that tells me that you have more brains than the entire defense team put together! :crazy:

They sure are whiny, aren't they? :waitasec:

BBM:

Well....that would be one word for them! :innocent:


BTW.....Muzikman ROCKS!:rocker:

 

[Omachka]

Unsigned doc up.. very short and sweet..one page

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23545129/detail.html

<begin sarcasm>Oh this will not work! They can't expect the defense to have to look up these statutes all on their own can they? <end sarcasm>

 

[Marina2]

I'd guess crawling around on hands and knees over half an acre of underbrush carefully searching for small bones belonging to Caylee may have had a significant impact on them to raise the bar.:furious:

That and maybe something on that duct tape proves she was alive and suffered tremendously when it was placed on her.

 

[athy]

just like i think defense is becoming sorry they got rid of Judge Strickland, i believe they're going to be sorry that this Judge asked SA to list their reason for the DP and did so quickly.

 

[AZlawyer]

Not strange at all, it means you can think, discern...or maybe you have magic powers.:angel:

So, now what does the defense do with this? Legally speaking that is

Let me check my crystal ball again...:crystal ball:

I predict they will whine that they are unable to understand the reasons for each of these aggravators.

 

[denjet]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

Amazing, huh? I'm sure this one-pager was not what Jose was looking for ... kudos to Ashton ... :clap:

 

[Paintr]

Not strange at all, it means you can think, discern...or maybe you have magic powers.:angel:

So, now what does the defense do with this? Legally speaking that is

Now the defense files a motion whining to the court that the SA did not explain each one and did not expound on the reason they chose each one and how the SA means to prove each one. :banghead:

 

[Muzikman]

BBM:

Well....that would be one word for them! :innocent:


BTW.....Muzikman ROCKS!:rocker:

BBM - Yeah, I'm in a nice and generous mood today. :innocent:

 

[TorisMom003]

I predict that the defense will file another motion stating that the state did not give them exactly what they asked for. From what I heard the defense wanted it all spelled out for them. What aggravating factors they were going to go for and why they were going for those particular factors. To me the list is self explanatory and if someone on the defense team is so dense that they can not understand the why to any of those factors then perhaps they should resign and never practice law again.

ETA: Thanks to MM for once again providing us with the information so quickly!!

 

[Macushla]

Interesting wording in the notice. "........the State MAY argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter.

May is BBM. They are not saying they ARE going to argue all the factors they listed, just that they may. I wonder if that is normal for this type of notice or not?

 

[Paintr]

Isn't it strange that we all came up with the same idea of what the defense will do next? LOL! How long do you think it will be before this motion is filed? Friday afternoon at 10 minutes to 5 is my guess. lOL!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I especially appreciated the fact that SA didn't use one . single . extra . word .

And that they stated "the State may argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances. . ."

They were as brief and vague as legally possible and I don't blame them a bit.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Isn't the fact that she has been convicted of a felony an aggravating factor? OR am I wrong?

 

[Aedrys]

just like i think defense is becoming sorry they got rid of Judge Strickland, i believe they're going to be sorry that this Judge asked SA to list their reason for the DP and did so quickly.

Shoot, they had that list ready before the dang DP hearing, most likely. They just nicely let a couple of days go by before filing it. You know, they don't want the defense looking more stupid than they already do.

I swear, I bet they have a lot of already prepared responses to motions, just waiting for the defense to file their next ridiculous motion. They probably take bets on what motion will get filed next.

 

[whiteangora]

I especially appreciated the fact that SA didn't use one . single . extra . word .

And that they stated "the State may argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances. . ."

They were as brief and vague as legally possible and I don't blame them a bit.

Brief and to the point! I guess the response will be "duh, what u talkin 'bout Willis"?
Thanks to Muzikman for another scoop.

 

[suzihawk]

Interesting wording in the notice. "........the State MAY argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter.

May is BBM. They are not saying they ARE going to argue all the factors they listed, just that they may. I wonder if that is normal for this type of notice or not?

Yup, I picked right up on that. And to take it a step further, it also says, "... based upon the evidence available at PRESENT..., which leaves open the opportunity to change it at any point forward.

 

[Macushla]

Ok, I admit I am 'almost' looking forward to the defense filing a motion asking the State to spell out exactly why they are going to argue each aggravating factor. Can you imagine how JA or LDB would explain "the child under the age of 12 factor?" to the defense. I can just imagine it