2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[logicalgirl]

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

I'm having real problems trying to find information on the Guilt Phase, any suggestions. I ask for guilt or trial and get penalty. That's why I am getting confused here, because it seems to contain the same information as the guilt phase.

Or am I just scrambling my own eggs here?

 

[logicalgirl]

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...

ICA did commit the criminal activity she was convicted on (forgeries) before she was charged with the murder however. I think there may be a difference there.

 

[whiteangora]

I'm having real problems trying to find information on the Guilt Phase, any suggestions. I ask for guilt or trial and get penalty. That's why I am getting confused here, because it seems to contain the same information as the guilt phase.

Or am I just scrambling my own eggs here?

LOL, logicalgirl, Just think of it as the Trial (Guilt Phase) and the after trial activities (Penalty Phase). In essence it's all part of the trial just in 2 parts.

 

[gamom]

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

I would think the 31 days would fall under "cruel crime" maybe even premeditated as she had a backup plan as to where to stay,etc so she could pull this off and not go back to the Anthony's home. I know leaving your daughter in a hot trunk and then throwing the body in the woods so that animals could eat at her remains sounds very cruel to me.

 

[gamom]

They must like to go with more than one though. They had four of these when they took the death penalty off the table saying they didn't have enough aggravating factors to seek the death penalty. The only one they didn't have was the "cruel crime" factor. I guess this was added after finding the body and was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"

That may be why AL wanted them to list it. She may argue that they had all of these before, which is why now the state is acting in bad faith. My guess this is why they are listing more then just those two. To me the way the body was found...and the fact that she never reported her missing shows this to be a cruel crime. Not to mention the partying afterwards....the lying to detectives, no remorse. The first phone call home about saying "Oh, well" when her friends says "If something happens to Caylee, I'll just die" all very cruel in my opinion.

 

[Harmony 2]

It seems to me that the defense thinks that since Caylee was discarded so "carefully" and her mother wouldn't say where she disposed of her..leaving her to rot in the elements for half a year..destroying any hardcore evidence as to what EXACTLY happened to her..that the SA can't seek the death penalty because based on the atrocious way she was "put away" - they can't prove exactly how she was murdered.

So, if we go with the defense's logic - future murderers take note - just hold out hope no one finds the body for a while so that evidence can be destroyed and maybe you won't get the DP.

Awesome post.. my sentiments exactly!!!

 

[nancy botwin]

I'm having real problems trying to find information on the Guilt Phase, any suggestions. I ask for guilt or trial and get penalty. That's why I am getting confused here, because it seems to contain the same information as the guilt phase.

Or am I just scrambling my own eggs here?

I don't know if I understand your question exactly, so forgive me if this is not what you're looking for.

This website offers a cool little interactive flash program which allows you to click through the various stages of a capital trial (and shows you what happens during each stage/offers a brief description.)

As far as the Guilt Phase-- that's the part we popularly recognize as the criminal trial-- the opening/closing arguments, testimony, jury instructions/deliberations, etc. So things you're reading about a non-death penalty criminal case and criminal cases in general will likely apply-- the only difference I can think of offhand is that in voir dire (part of guilt phase) the jury selected has to be death-eligible.

Guilt Phase is just the "did you do it?"-part and Penalty phase is "ok, we know you did it, now what are we going to do to you?"-part.
You probably keep running into info about the Penalty Phase because that's where capital cases depart from the general sentencing process-- penalty phase has its own unique set of issues and procedure, etc. (the issues and procedure involved in capital sentencing (penalty phase) are more complex because "death is different" -- something you likely heard Andrea Lyon say a lot in the last hearing).
Does that make sense or get close to what you were asking?

 

[ZsaZsa]

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...

There was of course significant prior criminal activity,but her family never reported it to Police. Theft for example.. Shirley Plesea came the closest to making her face her crimes but backed off for Cindy's sake.

 

[Whome?]

There was of course significant prior criminal activity,but her family never reported it to Police. Theft for example.. Shirley Plesea came the closest to making her face her crimes but backed off for Cindy's sake.

Is Shirley P going to still testify for the SA? Has it been their choice to
remain quiet and private?:waitasec:

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is Shirley P going to still testify for the SA? Has it been their choice to
remain quiet and private?:waitasec:

Haven't heard anything about her or Rick since her LE Interview. He was posting online for a while but he has been quiet too. Maybe Kathi Belich should interview them for an update..

 

[logicalgirl]

LOL, logicalgirl, Just think of it as the Trial (Guilt Phase) and the after trial activities (Penalty Phase). In essence it's all part of the trial just in 2 parts.

LOL White Angora - it's bad but not that bad. I have all this information on the Penalty phase, but it talks all about aggravating factors (like the ones the SA listed today) but in more detail which this info is calling state's evidence in support of the death penalty, plus mitigating factors, plus non-mitigating circumstances.plus the what you are calling the penalty phase, this information calls the penalty phase, plus jury instructions, etc. Blah blah blah.

So I'm trying to sort out who can present what during the Trial(Guilt) Phase, but can't seem to locate any information on the "whole Trial" phase. I just have the penalty phase. Okay I am blithering out of control now LOL.

I rarely drink but right now I sure wish I did!

 

[Whome?]

O/T I am new here,but if it is politically correct,would someone please start a thread
for SA/JA.I noticed the other day he let big girl AL get under his skin,and in his anger
he lost it for a while. I yelled at my computer monitor, we are behind you JA don't
let them see you sweat. Casey my have that defense team,but you have thousands
if not tens of thousands of people pulling for you.You are our mouthpiece,and most
importantly you are Casey's angel,so take your time JA cool out,don't let LKB or big girl
AL get under your skin. We "hear you,we hear you" and we are with you,everytime you
step in that court room. Take your time and do your job for Casey.

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't know if I understand your question exactly, so forgive me if this is not what you're looking for.

This website offers a cool little interactive flash program which allows you to click through the various stages of a capital trial (and shows you what happens during each stage/offers a brief description.)

As far as the Guilt Phase-- that's the part we popularly recognize as the criminal trial-- the opening/closing arguments, testimony, jury instructions/deliberations, etc. So things you're reading about a non-death penalty criminal case and criminal cases in general will likely apply-- the only difference I can think of offhand is that in voir dire (part of guilt phase) the jury selected has to be death-eligible.

Guilt Phase is just the "did you do it?"-part and Penalty phase is "ok, we know you did it, now what are we going to do to you?"-part.
You probably keep running into info about the Penalty Phase because that's where capital cases depart from the general sentencing process-- penalty phase has its own unique set of issues and procedure, etc. (the issues and procedure involved in capital sentencing (penalty phase) are more complex because "death is different" -- something you likely heard Andrea Lyon say a lot in the last hearing).
Does that make sense or get close to what you were asking?

Hooray! Thank you! Exactly what I was asking for. I'm clear about Guilt/Trial Phase and Penalty Phase, no issue there, but in the mitigating factors thread, we seem to flip back and forth between Trial and Penalty as if they are one - and yes! I know they are parts of one - but parts.
So I will use the link you gave me happily to prepare myself for the kinds of stuff Baez is going to come up with.

Was very happy to see "death is different" is an actual section of this stuff I'm reading and not a Lyonsism, which is how I thought she presented it as being.

So mega thanks.:blowkiss:

 

[faefrost]

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

.

Let me take a stab at guessing the states thinking and reasoning here.

1. The chloroform, or the act of drugging the child. Yeah I know that the agravated child abuse may or will roll into the murder charge. But that only applies to the actual act of abuse that led directly to the death. if there is evidence that she has used drugs to knock Caylee out in order to party in the past or the much joked about Xanny the nanny, then the aggravated child abuse still stands on its own. Does it not?

2. The duct tape is the primary indicator here. someone comitted a very deliberate act to this child. And for whoever was asking about the defense claiming that the duct tape was not covering the mouth and nose. Go back and review Dr. G's reports on it. The duct tape was so firmly affixed to the skull that it held the jaw in place preventing the jaw from coming unsocketed or dropping from the skull. Si it firmly covered everything from nose to chin and around to the base of the skull.

3. Premeditation. This will be the tricky one for the SA. But the computer searches, the lies, the defendents actions will be used to get the jury to reasonably believe that yes she did intend this act. In this case it was a combination of wanting out of the responsibility mixed with the fight with CA. While if KC had gone after CA that night it would not have been premeditated. Instead directing it at Caylee in order to harm or hurt CA was not a spontaneous act. It would be considered deliberate and premeditated. Y/N?

4. Age. As AZL said. Do the math. If you can't do that defense. Please mail your license to practice back to the bar. (Although it would be interesting to see JB argue that the state can't actually prove that Caylee was under 12... after all she might have just been really really short.)

5. Mommy Dearest. Once again kind of a tough one to argue against or try and counter.

Am I anywhere near close you think?

 

[Intermezzo]

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."

:applause::laughitup:

 

[Paintr]

Let me take a stab at guessing the states thinking and reasoning here.

1. The chloroform, or the act of drugging the child. Yeah I know that the agravated child abuse may or will roll into the murder charge. But that only applies to the actual act of abuse that led directly to the death. if there is evidence that she has used drugs to knock Caylee out in order to party in the past or the much joked about Xanny the nanny, then the aggravated child abuse still stands on its own. Does it not?

2. The duct tape is the primary indicator here. someone comitted a very deliberate act to this child. And for whoever was asking about the defense claiming that the duct tape was not covering the mouth and nose. Go back and review Dr. G's reports on it. The duct tape was so firmly affixed to the skull that it held the jaw in place preventing the jaw from coming unsocketed or dropping from the skull. Si it firmly covered everything from nose to chin and around to the base of the skull.

3. Premeditation. This will be the tricky one for the SA. But the computer searches, the lies, the defendents actions will be used to get the jury to reasonably believe that yes she did intend this act. In this case it was a combination of wanting out of the responsibility mixed with the fight with CA. While if KC had gone after CA that night it would not have been premeditated. Instead directing it at Caylee in order to harm or hurt CA was not a spontaneous act. It would be considered deliberate and premeditated. Y/N?

4. Age. As AZL said. Do the math. If you can't do that defense. Please mail your license to practice back to the bar. (Although it would be interesting to see JB argue that the state can't actually prove that Caylee was under 12... after all she might have just been really really short.)

5. Mommy Dearest. Once again kind of a tough one to argue against or try and counter.

Am I anywhere near close you think?

Great post, faefrost. I think you are very very close. :dance:

I have a question? About premediation. I thought premediation could be a very short period of time. For example...if KC covered Caylee's nose and mouth with tape and chose not to remove the tape for however long Caylee struggled to breath and then die is that not considered premediation?

 

[okiedokietoo]

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?

 

[logicalgirl]

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?

Wasn't that Kio Marie who wanted to adopt Caylee?

 

[okiedokietoo]

I was thinking that it was but for the life of me I couldn't find a transcript or anything to double check

 

[logicalgirl]

Great post, faefrost. I think you are very very close. :dance:

I have a question? About premediation. I thought premediation could be a very short period of time. For example...if KC covered Caylee's nose and mouth with tape and chose not to remove the tape for however long Caylee struggled to breath and then die is that not considered premediation?

Absolutely agree also - haven't there been precedents set in prior trials regarding duct taping the nose and mouth and there being no possibility of the child surviving no matter what the motive is? I'm sure I've seen it quoted here on WS.