2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I'm expecting the Judge to have a problem with the words may and argue.

"the state will list ... the aggravating factors that it intends to prove."

JP didn't order the State to list the aggravating factors it may argue.

I hardly think anyone, including JP, would deem intends to prove as being synonymous with may argue.

I hope HHJP won't find a problem here because of the language. "Intends" leaves the same wiggle room as "may." And one does "argue" a point in court to try to "prove" it. The case is still being investigated and facts may change drastically so the prosecution would be wrong to guarantee or promise any specific arguments or proof.

So the language, IMO, should not be the point of HHJP's problem. If he does have a problem, I would guess it would be because of the brevity, lack of detail. But I have no idea if he wanted or even indicated the amount of detail that this list should include.

 

[strawberry]

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

I love the fact that he listed the statutes and not what the statute says! So funny! And I may say, that list was a no brainer.

 

[strawberry]

Ooh I stayed home sick today...they're talking about the list now on In Session. Aggravated child abuse may be where the prosecution hangs it's hat. Same thing someone here (AZ Lawyer?) said.

 

[The World According]

Let's review: Mr. Ashton answered this question for them in December of 2009!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rAV535Cgi8[/ame]

Richard Hornsby's take on it " Jeff Ashton is basically saying we don't have anything to hide here. You want to know what our theory is? Here it is! Come and get us; because, we feel confident that this is what happened."

You just can't make this stuff up!

 

[Just Jayla]

Ooh I stayed home sick today...they're talking about the list now on In Session. Aggravated child abuse may be where the prosecution hangs it's hat. Same thing someone here (AZ Lawyer?) said.

I am also thinking the state could show that, at least the abuse, was premeditated-Not that it is the same thing as premeditating murder, but if they can say the computer searches and the Zanny stories led into KC utilizing chloroform on Caylee as a "nanny", it means she thought out how to abuse her child.
The thing with the chloroform is tough to do, with the new technology coming in, and the thing with the duct tape will be tough to argue because we don't know if it caused death or was placed (peri-mortem) immediately after death. If you go chloroform, it points to abuse if not intended murder-If you go duct tape only, to me, just argue straight up premeditated murder by suffocation because there was so much tape.
Now there's the question of whether the jury has to ponder those specific aggravators in deliberation-I'll bring that over to the legal thread...

 

[The World According]

No matter how many times examples are given to the defense , they will feign confusion and misconduct. Their arguments of government misconduct have been going on from jump.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOHcZimThz4[/ame]

The problem with Mr. Baez, according to defense expert Richard Hornsby
"If he has no real evidence, and this is pure speculation, he is perpetually incorrect to be making these assertions in legal pleadings; because he is now committing a bar violation. That is the problem with Mr. Baez, it seems he only applies the rules to the other side, he doesn't want to apply the rules to himself.....
I don't understand why he is spinning his wheels......."

I imagine Mr. Hornsby is shaking his head at this mess, again!

To say they could not guess the aggravating factors made them look as incompetent as the various and sundry other things they have done that point to be careful what you wish for. My newest favorite is them asking for J. Jordan's tape recording to be unsealed, without knowing what in the world , on their part, had him so alarmed he felt the need to memorialize the conversation. You just can't make this stuff up!

ps: Mr. Baez, get your witness list ready. You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

 

[italianangel2411]

So, the only new aggravating factor is #2 cruel crime. The SA dropped the DP when it felt the other 4 were not enough.

From a layman’s opinion, which is based on the evidence we know of, (which certainly does not include some of the evidence that JA and JB knows of), I think that aggravating factors 4 and 5 are simply undisputable facts. Those 2 are enough, by law, for the state to ask for the DP, however, although the state had those two and felt they also had 1 and 3, they still dropped the DP. Does JA feel he needs 5 aggravating factors? From the evidence I have seen in via the Sunshine law, I do not see evidence that KC committed a premeditated murder, and I do not see any evidence that places KC at the site of the remains, so I just don’t see how aggravating factors 1, 2 and 3 will hold up. They may hold up at the upcoming hearing, because neither side is going to try this case at the hearing, so we will only be listening to arguments. JA will probably win these arguments. HHJP will allow the DP to stand, because aggravating factors 4 or 5 is all that is required to ask for the DP.
IF this case goes to trial, the prosecution will have a tough time proving premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence we have seen via the Sunshine law, and although I know we have not seen all the evidence, I still think the prosecution has their work cut out for them at trial.
Based on the Notice of Aggravating Factors I say, IF this case goes to trial, because I think there is a good possibility that the prosecution is still going to offer a plea deal before the trial starts. If KC pleaded out, that would be considered a win for the prosecution, and I think they would be happy to take a plea deal versus going to court with what they have and run a risk of a possible hung jury or even possibly losing the case. Even if KC were innocent, it may be in her best interest to plead out if the state offered a good enough deal, because there is the possibility that she may lose the case and be executed. Innocent people have been convicted before, and murderers have walked free, a plea may be the best case scenario for both sides. As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I personally do not believe that the prosecutors will offer a deal. Perhaps earlier before they found Caylee, but I think they made it quite clear during the hearings that there was never an offer nor will there be.
I also think that during the last hearing, Ms. Lyon stated that the cause of death could of been accidental then a coverup because she was scared. Interesting that she would mention that bc throughout the entire hearing the Defense is not acting like Casey is innocent at all...almost the opposite they were talking like she was guilty and wouldn be convicted.

 

[italianangel2411]

Defense will argue the ME's report..Homicide by underdetermined means. They will argue the state can't prove COD...which they don't have to anyway!
They will show means, motive and opportunity..IMO

They will argue the duct tape, they can't say who put it on Caylee or when it was put on Caylee or where it was put on Caylee.

They will argue ICA was a good mother, all her friends will say so...human decomp event in the trunk, doesn't make her a good mother..she's admitted to drugging Caylee so she can party, also in the jailhouse communications.

They will argue the Tennesse Lab results from the trunk of the pontiac.."Junk Science"...

My thinking is, ICA was the last one known to be with Caylee. She never reports an allegedly abduction, or Caylee not being returned. She's got three stories on how Caylee was taken if you count the jailhouse letters/communications. She does nothing to help LE locate this alleged ZFG, she's lied from the start..she did nothing to help find Caylee for IMO, she knew where she was the entire time. She allowed Caylee to lay in the elements for over 6 months while she memorialized her life with her party life, a tattoo and the diary of days. I wish the State could use that diary of days for it shows her state of mind. I don't believe that was written back in 2003...the handwritting is more mature, IMO...

There will be no plea deal, that ship sailed long ago. I feel if her attorneys' truly want to save her life, they should inform ICA you may not walk on this as we first thought. Maybe you'd consider pleading guilty and take a LWOP sentence, at least you get to live...JMHO


Justice For Caylee

I'm sure the defense will debate the ME report...but remember at first she blamed that the Nanny took Caylee so debating the ME report would be contradictory to her first claim and the prosecutors can certainly prove there is no nanny. So, why debate the ME report if you didn't kill your daughter? The jurors will see that.
Casey should be charged with other charges like the balloon boy family because the amount of money and resources used to try to locate Caylee for many months when Casey knew exactly where she was. She wasted time, money, and resources for her own profit.
They might be able to prove that the duct tape was put on either before or after death through the experts.
I agree with you completely! There will be no offer to plea at all at this point. When they found Caylee that boat sailed. I CAN'T STAND CASEY FAKE CRYING at the hearings!!! Drives me nuts seeing her wipe so slowly to see if there will be a tear or mascara. Like if your really upset and crying you ball and cry and not do that nonsense! I find it interesting that George didn't show up, perhaps divorce for the two of them very soon. I don't think she will have a lot of people saying she was a good mother or doing her motherly duties. They will say she went to such and such party and lied this time and the next. Her character will be brought into question and they have have proof she is a liar, to her friends, about a job, and stealing. Casey's own words throughout the letters in jail and jail recordings will be damning to her but her own computer searches will be too. It still seems to be that Cindy knew that Caylee was dead on July during the myspace blog entry saying she came into my life unexpectedly and she left gone (it seems to be she talks about the birth and death). Maybe thats what it explains on the 911 call when Cindy says I gave you 31 days..I'm not giving you 1 more day.

 

[logicalgirl]

So, the only new aggravating factor is #2 cruel crime. The SA dropped the DP when it felt the other 4 were not enough.

From a layman’s opinion, which is based on the evidence we know of, (which certainly does not include some of the evidence that JA and JB knows of), I think that aggravating factors 4 and 5 are simply undisputable facts. Those 2 are enough, by law, for the state to ask for the DP, however, although the state had those two and felt they also had 1 and 3, they still dropped the DP. Does JA feel he needs 5 aggravating factors? From the evidence I have seen in via the Sunshine law, I do not see evidence that KC committed a premeditated murder, and I do not see any evidence that places KC at the site of the remains, so I just don’t see how aggravating factors 1, 2 and 3 will hold up. They may hold up at the upcoming hearing, because neither side is going to try this case at the hearing, so we will only be listening to arguments. JA will probably win these arguments. HHJP will allow the DP to stand, because aggravating factors 4 or 5 is all that is required to ask for the DP.
IF this case goes to trial, the prosecution will have a tough time proving premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence we have seen via the Sunshine law, and although I know we have not seen all the evidence, I still think the prosecution has their work cut out for them at trial.
Based on the Notice of Aggravating Factors I say, IF this case goes to trial, because I think there is a good possibility that the prosecution is still going to offer a plea deal before the trial starts. If KC pleaded out, that would be considered a win for the prosecution, and I think they would be happy to take a plea deal versus going to court with what they have and run a risk of a possible hung jury or even possibly losing the case. Even if KC were innocent, it may be in her best interest to plead out if the state offered a good enough deal, because there is the possibility that she may lose the case and be executed. Innocent people have been convicted before, and murderers have walked free, a plea may be the best case scenario for both sides. As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

The prosecution only needs a guilty finding on one of the aggravators to qualify for the death penalty. Either a child under the age of 12, and in a position of custodial responsibility will do. Aggravated child abuse should be easy also.

 

[Whome?]

Agree totally and maybe the duct tape makes it a cruel crime.

To me,(if I were a juror) this would be the duct tape.Having served on jury
duty in a criminal case.When they show you the deceased pictures,and
in this case they are of a child.this was a cruel crime.She was last seen
with her mother. that would do it for me. JMHO

 

[debbie0604]

And the prosecutors only need to prove one of those aggravators for a guilty verdict and to qualify for the death penalty.

I see two that are easy-peasy.

Oh dang.... I say this is a slam dunk!!

 

[AZlawyer]

The prosecution only needs a guilty finding on one of the aggravators to qualify for the death penalty. Either a child under the age of 12, and in a position of custodial responsibility will do. Aggravated child abuse should be easy also.

They only need one to "qualify" for the death penalty, but they'll probably need more than one to actually get it!

 

[debbie0604]

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

I believe that too. 3 layers I believe were placed with force.

JMO

 

[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.

There are a couple of spots where I am obviously going off the rails with these questions. Thanks for your patience and to Nancy Botwin for answering so nicely. I'm Canadian and our system is very different - media information during the trial is almost closed - and some but not a lot of the information comes out after the trial process is over.
So I am just trying to get this whole trial/guilt -penalty phase straight and organized in mind before we get further into the process of this trial. So thanks again for your patience and your answers.:blowkiss:

 

[logicalgirl]

They only need one to "qualify" for the death penalty, but they'll probably need more than one to actually get it!

Yes, I can see what you are saying. I won't care - either the DP or LWOP will be fine with me. But I'm not from Florida....

 

[Anais]

They only need one to "qualify" for the death penalty, but they'll probably need more than one to actually get it!

I am not anti DP but to be honest IMO it would be far worse for ICA to spend her life behind bars. IMO DP is much to easy an out for her. In a hardened womens prison ICA would suffer. They don't tolerate women who murder their children! LWOP would make her so fricking miserable and she'd have the rest of her life to think back on what she did to precious Caylee!!!

How many do you think it would take to actually get the DP?

 

[AZlawyer]

I am not anti DP but to be honest IMO it would be far worse for ICA to spend her life behind bars. IMO DP is much to easy an out for her. In a hardened womens prison ICA would suffer. They don't tolerate women who murder their children! LWOP would make her so fricking miserable and she'd have the rest of her life to think back on what she did to precious Caylee!!!

How many do you think it would take to actually get the DP?

It is not a matter of counting up the aggravators and mitigators. It's a "balancing" issue, so the answer depends on which aggravators we're talking about and how pitiful Casey's defense team can make her look during their presentation of mitigating evidence.

 

[Anais]

It is not a matter of counting up the aggravators and mitigators. It's a "balancing" issue, so the answer depends on which aggravators we're talking about and how pitiful Casey's defense team can make her look during their presentation of mitigating evidence.

I see, and think that I understand. All of this legal wrangling makes my stomach do flip flops and my head spins round & round! :waitasec: Oy somehow and some way I will get it all straight! Too much neurosurgery for me! LOL

Az you rock, thank you so very much for all of your help!!!!

 

[debbie0604]

It is not a matter of counting up the aggravators and mitigators. It's a "balancing" issue, so the answer depends on which aggravators we're talking about and how pitiful Casey's defense team can make her look during their presentation of mitigating evidence.

Hmm.. makes me wonder how "pitiful" the defense will make her look.

 

[Muzikman]

Not sure if this was already posted - Judge Perry's Order regarding providing a Statement of Particulars.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3869344...rticulars-Regarding-Aggravating-Circumstances

.