2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[Lanie]

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.

Be careful, you might be asked to join the defense team, especially since you fit their criteria of being out-of-state!

 

[Chiquita71]

KC told someone that she wanted to give Caylee up for adoption (don't remember who) - but CA talked her out of that. Would that info come in somehow, that KC didn't want Caylee?

Quote Respect okiedokietoo

IIRC, it is from the Joyce and Bailey Dickens Thread.

BD: She, she told her, this was very important, she, she tell ya how brilliant this Casey is, she was seven months pregnant before she even knew she was pregnant and she thinks she, its too late for an abortion, she wanted to put the baby up for adoption...

ETA: BD: And she, neighbor, Brian's wife that live right beside her, she said I've lived here three years and she hasn't said seven words to me. Tha, that mother, I am tellin' ya, she is very controlling and she's evil but...what Keo said, ah, she Keo also said that she didn't, she did want to get rid of the baby but the mother wouldn't let her. The mother made her keep the baby and have the baby. And, and, I think the baby was cramping that girls style. As far as working, and, and money, I don't know of anything she ever did.

Will the Dickens be on the stand? TIA.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4432046#post4432046"]2008.07.22 Joyce and Bailey Dickens Interview - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

:twocents:

 

[Lanie]

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.

Get in line, sweetie, I predicted that one the other day. :blowkiss:

I swear, it is beyond me WHY they would have even filed this motion, other than it affording the opportunity for another "the state is withholding information" whinefest.

 

[Chiquita71]

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.

Respectfully Quoted italianangel
BBM

I am only responding to the part in bold. I am using your post to jump off my burning question of the day: in an article from a link from Today's Current News, atty Ashton speaks of the plea as a "phantom plea" saying there never was a plea. I'm starting to get there never was a plea, I was wondering if that was just speculation or was something believed to be a fact at one time. TIA.


...js...

 

[Mamabear1963]

The only place I heard about a plea was on one of the papers that KC signed early on and she wrote the SA was mad cause she wouldn't take a plea

 

[The World According]

So they tweak the title of the document and request to have the matter heard again on motions that Judge Strickland denied...All of them? This is entertaining! This judge is making any hope of appeals on these matters very, very slim!

 

[rhornsby]

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

Technically, you only need a conviction for First Degree Murder to "qualify" for the death penalty and the jury only needs to find at least one "aggravating factor" to recommend the death penalty.

 

[Intermezzo]

Respectfully Quoted italianangel
BBM

I am only responding to the part in bold. I am using your post to jump off my burning question of the day: in an article from a link from Today's Current News, atty Ashton speaks of the plea as a "phantom plea" saying there never was a plea. I'm starting to get there never was a plea, I was wondering if that was just speculation or was something believed to be a fact at one time. TIA.


...js...

The only place I heard about a plea was on one of the papers that KC signed early on and she wrote the SA was mad cause she wouldn't take a plea

Casey was offered a Limited Immunity deal back in August, 2008.
The deadline for accepting the Immunity deal ended September 2, 2008, IIRC It was Baez who approached the SAO about an Immunity deal, a Limited Immunity was offered, but Baez/Casey let the deadline pass without a response to the SAO.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-09-03/news/casey03_1_anthony-bounty-child-neglect

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/2/casey_could_take_immunity_for_information_on_caylee.html

 

[gamom]

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.

It is my understanding that the state does NOT have to prove premeditated murder. They are going to argue it, but if it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt its not a lose to the state. The jury can still impose the DP due to Caylee being under 12. That is the easiest to prove.

I agree, KC should plea out. But I think she should plea out because she is guilty. If she was innocent it should be very easy to produce the Nanny that has been taking care of your child for the past couple of years. At the very least a phone number. Even if the number was disconnected now, phone records could be pulled and a valid search for her could start. IF it was believed that KC was innocent, the fact that she left her child with a person who she does not even have a phone number for is serious NEGLECT. Not to mention she has no valid address. As a parent it is your job to protect your child. If the nanny came to her house, I could kind of understand her not knowing where she lived...maybe even not have a number. But she claims to have dropped Caylee off here daily. Even if she was innocent, the death of her child due to her negligence would be enough for life in prison. That does not even factor in her not reporting her missing...

 

[Spangle]

Neither article states where they got the information that there was a deal offered.

Knowing JB's MO, wonder if it's possible that he brought it up to the LE, LE insinuated that it might be 'possible'.. which means just that. JB didn't come back to get the ball rolling.. so no deal was worked up. No offer on the table. Just a speculation of wither or not it's possible.

Then he floats it to the media... Which checks to see if it's possibly true.. which it's possible.. but that doesn't mean a 'hard copy' deal was written up and offered. The media doesn't think to ask if it was a 'hard copy'.. Just assumed JB & company wouldn't spread rumors on a 'specualtion'.. or "feelers"...

Hence, no real offer was made. Just the LE admiting they would be open to such an idea (nothing on paper yet). Since the ball was in JB's court.. it would be considered factual he did turn offer down.. since he could have worked it and made it happen, if LE was open to the idea. And LE can honestly say no offer was made.. they never got that far.

Don't know if I explained this very well.. LOL!

 

[pamandabear]

I love how Judge Perry corrected AL in saying you only need one mitigating factor not two :laugh:

 

[gamom]

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

JMO

I would also like to add that in my opinion 3 pieces of tape would mean that she was alive when it was placed. Otherwise, one piece of tape would be all needed to make a pretend kidnaping scene.

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

The process of what level of "weight" given to mitigating evidence is also really interesting. Some of the examples I read gave "little" weight to points I thought would be taken into consideration.

So I will be very interested to see how ICA's mitigating evidence is rated. She doesn't have a whole lot going for her in her favor.IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

I would also like to add that in my opinion 3 pieces of tape would mean that she was alive when it was placed. Otherwise, one piece of tape would be all needed to make a pretend kidnaping scene.

I wish someone would pull up that case we had listed a while ago with the duct tape ruling - was it the Huck case? Obviously I can't remember the name of the case and the ruling or I'd bring it up myself. LOL

But I thought I remembered the judge ruling that tape covering a face would always mean the intent was death. Oh Lord - help! Anyone? Where's TWA or Sleutherontheside when I need them.

 

[Muzikman]

Neither article states where they got the information that there was a deal offered.

Knowing JB's MO, wonder if it's possible that he brought it up to the LE, LE insinuated that it might be 'possible'.. which means just that. JB didn't come back to get the ball rolling.. so no deal was worked up. No offer on the table. Just a speculation of wither or not it's possible.

Then he floats it to the media... Which checks to see if it's possibly true.. which it's possible.. but that doesn't mean a 'hard copy' deal was written up and offered. The media doesn't think to ask if it was a 'hard copy'.. Just assumed JB & company wouldn't spread rumors on a 'specualtion'.. or "feelers"...

Hence, no real offer was made. Just the LE admiting they would be open to such an idea (nothing on paper yet). Since the ball was in JB's court.. it would be considered factual he did turn offer down.. since he could have worked it and made it happen, if LE was open to the idea. And LE can honestly say no offer was made.. they never got that far.

Don't know if I explained this very well.. LOL!

BBM

There were emails between LDB and Baez about this that became public. I have them, somewhere....

Baez, through LE, indicated he wanted to talk about a deal. When the olive branch was extended by LDB to talk about it, he ignored it. Likely because Casey did not want to admit to anything.

The offer to talk ended after Labor Day weekend 2008.

 

[The World According]

I wish someone would pull up that case we had listed a while ago with the duct tape ruling - was it the Huck case? Obviously I can't remember the name of the case and the ruling or I'd bring it up myself. LOL

But I thought I remembered the judge ruling that tape covering a face would always mean the intent was death. Oh Lord - help! Anyone? Where's TWA or Sleutherontheside when I need them.

Here you go friend:
From the case:
"At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose
and mouth or from drowning. " Interesting that they did not need to prove exactly, or be married to one particular cause of death.



My favorite part:
. "The State is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the
evidence. Rather, it is the State's obligation to introduce competent substantial evidence that
is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Perry v. State, 801 So. 2d 78, 84 (Fla.
2001); State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989). "
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM 2004
BRENT ROBERT HUCK,
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 5D03-1906

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
___________________________________/
Opinion filed July 16, 2004
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
David Dugan, Judge.
Gregory W. Eisenmenger and Robert R. Berry of
Eisenmenger, Berry & Peters, Melbourne, for
Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee,
and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General,
Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
MONACO, J.
Brent Robert Huck appeals his convictions for the kidnapping and felony murder of his
former girlfriend, Misty Morse.

www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thank you TWA......you found Huck in a flash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[logicalgirl]

Here you go friend:



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM 2004
BRENT ROBERT HUCK,
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 5D03-1906

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
___________________________________/
Opinion filed July 16, 2004
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
David Dugan, Judge.
Gregory W. Eisenmenger and Robert R. Berry of
Eisenmenger, Berry & Peters, Melbourne, for
Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee,
and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General,
Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
MONACO, J.
Brent Robert Huck appeals his convictions for the kidnapping and felony murder of his
former girlfriend, Misty Morse.
About 22,300 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results

1.
Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of ...
Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - .... He also recovered some white duct tape from Mr. Huck's bedroom. .... Tape apparently covered her mouth and eyes. Ruptured plastic bags were attached to the .... In criminal cases, however, circumstantial evidence must ...
www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts

Beautiful - thank you that is excellent - at least I got the name right but I thought if anyone remembered it would be you or SOTS ..er..Sleutherontheside. Appreciate it so much.:blowkiss:

 

[The World According]

Beautiful - thank you that is excellent - at least I got the name right but I thought if anyone remembered it would be you or SOTS ..er..Sleutherontheside. Appreciate it so much.:blowkiss:

"At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose
and mouth or from drowning. " Interesting that they did not need to prove exactly, or be married to one particular cause of death.



My favorite part:
. "The State is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the
evidence. Rather, it is the State's obligation to introduce competent substantial evidence that
is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Perry v. State, 801 So. 2d 78, 84 (Fla.
2001); State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989). "
Someone better send this to the defense, apparently you are more familiar with Florida case law than they are.

 

[logicalgirl]

"At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose
and mouth or from drowning. " Interesting that they did not need to prove exactly, or be married to one particular cause of death.



My favorite part:
. "The State is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the
evidence. Rather, it is the State's obligation to introduce competent substantial evidence that
is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Perry v. State, 801 So. 2d 78, 84 (Fla.
2001); State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989). "
Someone better send this to the defense, apparently you are more familiar with Florida case law than they are.

Yes, that's what I was looking for but then got interested in the appeal and had to read the whole thing again. I noticed in the appeal the defense tried to get the ME testimony excluded because the ME could only testify as to medical probability not a medical certainty, but that was denied -
Did ya read that part Baez?