2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[AZlawyer]

Does the SA say anything during the Stat/mit circumstance stage of the penalty phase?

If not when would they bring that up? Or do they?

The penalty phase does not have separate stages. I don't see how the forgery charges would be brought up in the penalty phase; they are not aggravating circumstances, and they are certainly not mitigating circumstances.

I think what we've discussed before is that the forgery convictions could be used if Casey testifies to impeach her--i.e., to show that she is not to be believed. But she won't testify.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Originally Posted by AZlawyer
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. 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

Heck, I am no lawyer and even I got it right??? LOL

The defense is being incredulous when they said they don't know the aggravating circumstances, they waste time. Defense thinks ICA is always overcharged as with the forgery...

Now, if they file another motion that these factors don't fit, JPerryJr. may just rock out of his chair to "scold" them all...ALyon (no S), I can understand, she's not from Florida...but CMason and Baez should truly feel ashamed they asked for the SAO to lay it out...do they want the SA to try this case for them??? Do they need their hands held???

UNREAL! Now that JA just listed the statutes, poor law students will have to look it up to understand what they mean...


MUSICMAN...thank you for all you do.....

You are my HERO and Caylee's Guardian Angel (protector)...:dance:

thanks for looking out for her!

IF THE CHARGES FIT, YOU MUST CONVICT!!!

:woohoo:

 

[logicalgirl]

The penalty phase does not have separate stages. I don't see how the forgery charges would be brought up in the penalty phase; they are not aggravating circumstances, and they are certainly not mitigating circumstances.

I think what we've discussed before is that the forgery convictions could be used if Casey testifies to impeach her--i.e., to show that she is not to be believed. But she won't testify.

:blushing: Er - I'm trying to say sentencing phase. ( Or what the period is called after the guilty/not guilty decision and before the sentence is handed down.)

 

[whiteangora]

The penalty phase does not have separate stages. I don't see how the forgery charges would be brought up in the penalty phase; they are not aggravating circumstances, and they are certainly not mitigating circumstances.

I think what we've discussed before is that the forgery convictions could be used if Casey testifies to impeach her--i.e., to show that she is not to be believed. But she won't testify.

I was always under the impression that when the defense presents it's mitigating factors (during the penalty phase) that the floor would be exclusively theirs. The state can't object to the defense's efforts of saving their clients life, can they? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

:blushing: Er - I'm trying to say sentencing phase. ( Or what the period is called after the guilty/not guilty decision and before the sentence is handed down.)

You're saying it right. Sentencing phase is the same as penalty phase.

But there is nowhere in that sentencing/penalty phase that the SA could bring up the forgery convictions.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was always under the impression that when the defense presents it's mitigating factors (during the penalty phase) that the floor would be exclusively theirs. The state can't object to the defense's efforts of saving their clients life, can they? TIA

The defense will present mitigating evidence, and the State can object and counter that evidence just like in the guilt phase.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think this is where we are getting confused.

Is the trial called the Penalty Phase?

Is the period after the trial decision and before the sentencing called the sentencing phase?

I'm probably completely up the creek here but could you :slap: :croc: and then clarify all this for me/us? TIA

 

[nancy botwin]

I think this is where we are getting confused.

Is the trial called the Penalty Phase?

Is the period after the trial decision and before the sentencing called the sentencing phase?

I'm probably completely up the creek here but could you :slap: :croc: and then clarify all this for me/us? TIA

Trial is divided into two parts: Guilt Phase and Penalty Phase.
Penalty phase is the same as sentencing.

 

[cecybeans]

IMO, yes. But the SA wouldn't be giving up much to explain the application of each of these factors. It would take a sentence or two per factor.

Although for JB, it might take more. E.g.:

"1. Victim's age under 12. Explanation: Caylee was born on August 9, 2005. She died sometime between June 15, 2008 and December 11, 2008. In order to reach the age of 12, Caylee would have had to live until August 9, 2017. Therefore, by operation of known mathematical laws, Caylee was under the age of 12 at the time of her death."

And LKB would argue that the current mathematical laws are subject to review and might possibly be considered "junk science".

 

[AZlawyer]

I think this is where we are getting confused.

Is the trial called the Penalty Phase?

Is the period after the trial decision and before the sentencing called the sentencing phase?

I'm probably completely up the creek here but could you :slap: :croc: and then clarify all this for me/us? TIA

1. Guilt Phase--evidence regarding guilt--sometimes called the "trial" but really I think the "trial" is both phases together.

2. Sentencing Phase, also called Penalty Phase--evidence regarding aggravating circumstances (why Casey should get the death penalty) and mitigating circumstances (why Casey should not get the death penalty); also victim impact statements.

 

[whiteangora]

The defense will present mitigating evidence, and the State can object and counter that evidence just like in the guilt phase.

Sorry for all of the questions but during the penalty phase are witnesses actually called to the stand or is it more informal?
Thanks for your last answer.:blowkiss:

 

[Juliana]

Just on WESH - they list 5, don't have the doc yet, the SA just filed it:

1. Aggravated Child Abuse
2. Cruel Crime
3. Premeditation
4. Under the age of 12
5. In mother's care

http://www.wesh.com/news/23544839/detail.html

WFTV has the doc up, which lists it by statute number. Ashton didn't spend much time on this! heh
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23545129/detail.html

WFTV story:
http://www.wftv.com/news/23545577/detail.html

.

Muzikman: I don't post a lot because my brain works a little slower than most of you, I guess. By the time I've thought of an informative post, well...more often than not it was already thought of. But I want to tell you how much I appreciate your dedication to this case. You have been an angel for Caylee. Almost all of us are here because she captured our hearts. Sweet little girl. Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry for all of the questions but during the penalty phase are witnesses actually called to the stand or is it more informal?
Thanks for your last answer.:blowkiss:

Yes, evidence is presented just like in the guilt phase, except that some things like hearsay rules may be "loosened up" a bit.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

"The station led its 4 p.m. newscast with the prosecution’s release today of five reasons it’s seeking the death penalty. The defense’s “winning the right to get this list this week was one of seven major developments in the case,” Kealing said. Kealing said he would list six other key developments at 11."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...ampaign=Feed:+entertainment/tv/tvguy+(TV+Guy)

The bolded statement made me laugh out loud. Labor pains of an elephant ~ Birth of a mouse!

 

[ShadowGal]

<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>

:highfive:

ROFL, I was thinking the exact same thing! :woohoo:

 

[gamom]

and... premeditated, so do the Chloroform and neck-breaking searches

I see premeditated also since she made up this Zanny person (who ultimately was going to be her kidnapper) years before. Also that she was searching for missing kids way before Caylee was missing.

 

[JSR]

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

Nope but it can't be used as a mitigating factor when she's found guilty. One of the mitigating factors can be "no prior offenses". That went right out the window since she's a multiple convicted felon.

 

[logicalgirl]

So where in the aggravating circumstances would the not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days, or actually not at all, because Cindy did.

 

[Spangle]

Nope but it can't be used as a mitigating factor when she's found guilty. One of the mitigating factors can be "no prior offenses". That went right out the window since she's a multiple convicted felon.

True, however.. what she was convicted for, she did AFTER Caylee died. So it wasn't a prior offense.

That is what happens when you delay, delay, delay. Woops!

 

[gamom]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.htm

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.

(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.

(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

The defense is going to use (e) for sure since they want everyone to believe that KC is afraid of CA and some how is a victim. I can see them saying something like CA was fighting with KC about the money and taking care of Caylee and how CA wanted KC to move out. KC was under duress about how she was going to care for Caylee...stole money to help...etc...

Also (H) because they are going to say she had a rough childhood and was molested, called a *advertiser censored*, etc. More poor KC stuff.

And of course (A) no previous criminal activity...