2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[The World According]

I don't think they are seeking to find out if the state has evidence KC may have told them about. I don't think she has told them anything. However, the defense is not stupid (contrary to popular belief, I know). They've seen the same evidence we've seen and I do believe they've come to the conclusion she is guilty. I think the defense is looking for something in particular that they themselves anticipate. They fear a particular theory the state may present and are using this motion in an attempt to find out if the state will go that route. There's a good reason for this motion and, imo, it has nothing to do with their inability to define an aggravating factor.

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

The defense is trying to put the State in a corner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was (h) the cause of death or (d) an act of aggravated child abuse resulting in death. To prove either, the State needs to prove, a) that Casey applied the duct tape, and b) that Caylee was still alive when the duct tape was applied.

For clarity's sake, I'm not arguing that any of the above will factor into Casey being found guilty. It's a DP motion based on the presumption that she will. What I'm addressing is, during sentencing, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was applied by Casey prior to Caylee's death. In other words, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific cause of death?

If the State can't prove a specific cause of death, then they're basically in the same position they were before the DP was put on the table, hence the argument that they are overcharging the case.


Florida Statute 921.141(5):

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged… in the commission of… aggravated child abuse…

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

Ms. Lyon's position, despite her 30plus years of experience has proven to be wrong on the facts and wrong on the Florida law, many, many times so far IN THIS CASE. She has strong opinions on the death penalty, and she has argued them, extensively, but that is what they are, her opinions, not the law, according to ADA Jeff Ashton. That is not to take anything away from her lifetime of work or her obvious passion about the death penalty. Two judges in this case have shot down her arguments numerous times. I am not worried, at all, about Ms. Lyon's position. Thanks to Sleutherontheside finding them, I have listened to hours of her lectures and it is clear to me that she has a SOP that includes filing every motion one can dream up, to lay a record for the appeal process. I have no problem with her doing so. I do however believe that even for her the outcome of those motions is known and laying a record is , even for her, the only desired, expected result. The judge even opined in open court to her ( paraphrasing ), yes I know Ms. Lyon you are doing your job, I understand that and I will allow you to make the arguments , for the record.

Marina, I agree , they are looking for something. Even if Baez does not , Cheney certainly can venture a guess on what they plan to use to prove their case. The funny thing is if I could write out the particulars on a five minute coffee break, surely the prosecutors could too. News flash for the defense....the state will not be limited on bringing any and all evidence they have, so long as they did not secrete it from the defense. These highly experienced prosecutors have released what is required by the discovery rules and they are well within their rights to argue any and all of it,whether it was listed on any such bill of particulars or not. Baez has, imo, a very, very poor understanding of the rules, in general. While Andrea knows her arguments are, in large part , perfunctory, Baez seems to have a misguided hope this nonsense is going to save Casey. Good luck with that, Jose. How's it working for you so far?

I am looking forward to Mr. Nejame mopping the floor with the defense, once again. Somebody oughta!View attachment 9301
Regarding my Get a Rope comment, it was a funny commercial from Texas I was speaking of, not a potential dp method, for the love of God! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY[/ame]

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

This is typical and we all called it! :woohoo:

Seems Baez wants his hand held through this entire process..

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for ALyon (no S) to look unintelligent as it relates to Florida law...she always thinks ICA is overcharged..she has no clear understanding of Florida law she should inform herself and read up on things..

Maybe it's due to the Sunshine law but I've never seen a more inept defense team, whining at the charges as they did with the fraud. I suspect this will be the end of their frivilous requests. I'm not worried either for HHJP will educate these attorneys and they will walk away with their tales between their legs...I think it's time for ICA to seriously think about changing her stance and plead guilty to avoid being put to death when a guilty verdict is reached...then again, this will avoid an appeal, so motion away...they're just in over their heads, IMO...I think they need to start defending their client, give her the cold hard facts and stop placating her...stop wasting time for it goes by fast...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

 

[truckengirl]

Why is the defense so worried about getting the death penalty off the table. They CLAIM to have proof that their client is innocent and say they will present it at trial and everyone will go oh I understand now. SO if they have this proof that is going to convince us all that she is innocent then why waste their time fighting the death penalty. My guess is that they know she is going to be found guilty because they have no proof of a ZG and no proof of KC's innocence.

 

[LambChop]

That, "Aha, moment where we will understand" has an alibi. jmo

 

[watcher9]

If the State does have to provide facts to back up their listed aggravating factors, can they just put one reason for each factor or do they have to list every fact for each factor? If they miss putting down a fact, can they still use it in the trial or will it be disallowed?

 

[JWG]

LG, sorry if I misunderstood you!

IMO the "particulars" as used in the context above just means the list of aggravating circs. And HHJP's order only required a list. And the State provided a list. Now the defense has the list, and all the evidence, but they want the State to match up which evidence goes with which aggravating circumstance. Which IMO is work product info and the defense can do it their own d@m selves.

IMO the only reason HHJP would grant this motion is because it would avoid an appeal issue and would not be that big a deal for the SA to hammer out an explanation for each aggravating circumstance. In fact, the SA might even enjoy it....

Isn't the process of "matching up" reserved for trial where the evidence and the story it tells can be cross-examined under oath, rather than arguing the validity of the "match up" via countless motions?

 

[AZlawyer]

Isn't the process of "matching up" reserved for trial where the evidence and the story it tells can be cross-examined under oath, rather than arguing the validity of the "match up" via countless motions?

Yes. What the defense should do, if it thinks there is NO evidence to support one of these factors, is a Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument Regarding Proposed Aggravating Factor #_____. Not a motion to have the SA do all the hard work of analyzing the evidence for us.

 

[ZsaZsa]

At a couple of hearings, the defense keeps mentioning "latent fingerprint evidence"...to which Ashton keeps saying that he knows of none. For some reason, the defense has "latent fingerprints" up their A$$.

Guilty conscience?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Ms. Lyon's position, despite her 30plus years of experience has proven to be wrong on the facts and wrong on the Florida law, many, many times so far IN THIS CASE. That is not to take anything away from her lifetime of work or her obvious passion about the death penalty. Two judges in this case have shot down her arguments numerous times. I am not worried, at all, about Ms. Lyon's position. Thanks to Sleutherontheside finding them, I have listened to hours of her lectures and it is clear to me that she has a SOP that includes filing every motion one can dream up, to lay a record for the appeal process. I have no problem with her doing so. I do however believe that even for her the outcome of those motions is known and laying a record is , even for her, the only desired, expected result. The judge even opined in open court to her ( paraphrasing ), yes I know Ms. Lyon you are doing your job, I understand that and I will allow you to make the arguments , for the record.

Marina, I agree , they are looking for something. Even if Baez does not , Cheney certainly can venture a guess on what they plan to use to prove their case. The funny thing is if I could write out the particulars on a five minute coffee break, surely the prosecutors could too. News flash for the defense....the state will not be limited on bringing any and all evidence they have, so long as they did not secrete it from the defense. These highly experienced prosecutors have released what is required by the discovery rules and they are well within their rights to argue any and all of it,whether it was listed on any such bill of particulars or not. Baez has, imo, a very, very poor understanding of the rules, in general. While Andrea knows her arguments are, in large part , perfunctory, Baez seems to have a misguided hope this nonsense is going to save Casey. Good luck with that, Jose. How's it working for you so far?

I am looking forward to Mr. Nejame mopping the floor with the defense, once again. Somebody oughta!View attachment 9301
Regarding my Get a Rope comment, it was a funny commercial from Texas I was speaking of, not a potential dp method, for the love of God! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY

If what we have seen of AL so far is her best work I shall relax...
With all the hoopla surrounding her being hired I may have expected too much- I thought she would be very eloquent and compelling to listen to.
NOT so far...
A condemned prisoner's last best hope? Oh dear..

 

[Aedrys]

At a couple of hearings, the defense keeps mentioning "latent fingerprint evidence"...to which Ashton keeps saying that he knows of none. For some reason, the defense has "latent fingerprints" up their A$$.

Either they know something aggravating we don't know or just suspect the SA has something damning. My question is, could there be some other kind of print evidence? Does "latent" apply to fingerprints only? I'm thinking maybe they might have a palm print, or a footprint(not likely, just pointing out it's different from a fingerprint), or teethprint (teethmarks, but you get my drift). I've seen cases where someone has been convicted from a palm print before. Maybe since all the defense keeps asking for is fingerprints, that's why the SA keeps saying they don't have fingerprints? To me, Baez should be asking for prints of any kind, not just fingerprints, but he's not the brightest bulb in the box, KWIM?

 

[Anais]

I personally think they just want to know where this is going and how hard they are going to push soddi or punch wholes in the evidence...they also seem to want it all and not think about it or do much of anything :waitasec:-there wasn't a cause of death for Lacy Peterson--and look where sp is living????

Next they will argue that no one seen her do it....welll golly I'm thinking most murders aren't done out in public for all to see...crazy...crazy crazy....:waitasec:

Yes this is something that drives me bonkers with this defense team.They don't seem to want to put any work nor effort towards this case in defending their client. They all jumped on board in taking this case but are the laziest, whiniest group I have ever seen. It is as if they want it all and handed to them on a silver platter at the same dang time! IMO they know the soddi isn't going to work. They are going to have a rough go and I am thinking they may just go for trying to confuse the jury with the evidence presented by the SA. There isn't a whole lot other options when you consider it. ICA's goose is going to be cooked. JMHO

One would think that a reasonable defense attorney could or should be able to figure this out. Or maybe I am wrong?

 

[Bobbisangel]

ITA! JB is wanted the state to do his work for him. This doesn't make any sense now!! Why didn't he file a motion for a speedy trial after the indictment of murder? Too late now! Do your own work JB!

I think that whole bunch of defense attorneys are lazy and want the Pros to do their work for them. Before long they will file a motion asking the judge to make the Pros write out their whole case word by word. It wouldn't surprise me at all!

Isn't it interesting that when Baez had all of that money he didn't do a thing on the case. Now that the state of Florida is paying he is just spending like crazy writing motion after motion...asking the judge to change motions that the previous judge said no about. Wanting the Pros to tell the defense their whole case...getting those depos going and on and on. For the life of me I don't understand why the judge or JAC didn't make Baez account for all of that money dollar by dollar. Everyone knows the defense didn't do anything when they had the money to get a lot of work done. JAC could have made them account for where the money went before they agreed to cover the cost of the whole case. I just don't understand that.

I hope the judge lays the law down on Baez and Co about filing so many motions. You know they will be pulling this stunt until the day they go to trial if the judge lets them get away with it. I'm talking about the senseless motions that this bunch always file.

 

[qipx1]

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

[cut]

This argument fails under Florida law.

[T]he decision of whether or not to prosecute in any given instance must be left to the discretion of the prosecutor. This discretion has been curbed by the judiciary only in those instances where impermissible motives may be attributed to the prosecution, such as bad faith, race, religion, or a desire to prevent the exercise of the defendant's constitutional rights.

Source: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...nd+"impermissible+motives"&hl=en&as_sdt=40004

Furthermore, this argument will not impress Judge Perry.

If folks are going to have confidence in our system of justice, then they are going to have to know that we're going to evenly apply it to everyone. If you meet the criteria and you don't have any proof problems, then so be it, then you go to the electric chair.

Source: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c..."Belvin+Perry"&hl=en&as_sdt=40004&as_ylo=1994

 

[Just Jayla]

I read through Steele and the various case refences therein, and I did not see anything about the state having to divulge their work product (forgive me if I was reading it at the wrong court level and something had changed)-In fact, it looked like Florida's Supreme Court wanted to leave that question open to the higher courts (and denied Steele's motion, if I read correctly) or to be addressed in a different case where that question would be the narrower focus of the decision.
If the state does not have to have a specific method of murder (and we know they don't from other cases), then they don't have to stick to a specific course of the events of the death itself-they only have to assign certain evidence to a foul play scenario of a plausible sort. I am sure there is a better way to write this...At any rate, me thinks AL is not so much picking at the aggravated child abuse part of the statute, as she is the premeditation-If she can get the state to show her how they decided on premeditation, the rest of it will become very clear to her as far as which direction the state is going to go.

 

[qipx1]

I read Steele here was my interpretation:
1. The Trial Judge may require the prosecution to LIST the aggravating circumstances, and failure to disclose an aggravating circumstance is not a reversible error.

The State is correct that we have consistently held that the lack of notice of specific aggravating circumstances does not render a death sentence invalid...The question we address in this case is really the other side of the coin from the one we addressed in ... other cases. In those cases, the defendants alleged that, to comply with constitutional requirements, judges must require the State to provide notice of the aggravating factors on which it intends to rely. We rejected that argument. Here, on the other hand, we consider whether a judge may require such notice without violating a clearly established principle of law. Whether to require the State to provide notice of alleged aggravators is within the trial court's discretion...We add, however, that under current law the trial court cannot prohibit the State from relying on an aggravator that was either undisclosed or disclosed beyond the deadline. As counsel for the respondent acknowledged at oral argument, any violation will at most justify a continuance to allow the defendant to rebut or impeach the State's evidence."

[emphasis added]

2. The Trial Judge made an error by using a "Special Verdict Form" for the sentencing phase (The vote on each aggravating and mitigating circumstance must be listed by the Jury before being summited to the Judge), because the Judge's decision on sentencing must be independent of the Juries.

...specific jury findings on aggravators without guidance about their effect on the imposition of a sentence could unduly influence the trial court's own determination of how to sentence the defendant. Under section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes, the trial court must independently determine the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the weight to be given each.

[emphasis added]

 

[qipx1]

At any rate, me thinks AL is not so much picking at the aggravated child abuse part of the statute, as she is the premeditation-If she can get the state to show her how they decided on premeditation, the rest of it will become very clear to her as far as which direction the state is going to go.

[cut]
From my understanding of Steele the prosecution does not have to convince a majority of Jurors that a SPECIFIC aggravating factor exists. Instead, a majority of Jurors must agree that ANY aggravating factor exists.

Under the law, therefore, the jury may recommend a sentence of death so long as a majority concludes that at least one aggravating circumstance exists. Nothing in the statute, the standard jury instructions, or the standard verdict form, however, requires a majority of the jury to agree on which aggravating circumstances exist. Under the current law, for example, the jury may recommend a sentence of death where four jurors believe that only the "avoiding a lawful arrest" aggravator applies, see § 921.141(5)(e), while three others believe that only the "committed for pecuniary gain" aggravator applies, see § 921.141(5)(f), because seven jurors believe that at least one aggravator applies.

 

[Just Jayla]

[cut]
From my understanding of Steele the prosecution does not have to convince a majority of Jurors that a SPECIFIC aggravating factor exists. Instead, a majority of Jurors must agree that ANY aggravating factor exists.

Right-And I was not clear on my last post-From my reading, and I am no Perry Mason: Yes, the courts held that the aggravators needed to be listed, but they waivered on whether there had to be, as JB calls it, "bill of particulars" (never heard of this in criminal cases, only in civil court). Basically, they left it at "list" the aggravators, not "define in context" the aggravators. As to how contextual they needed to be, my reading of Steele is that the appellate court did not wish to address that in their decision.

JB also wants the state to establish facts, I believe that is the purpose of the jury-If the state were to provide only facts, nothing would be alleged.

 

[Just Jayla]

As Judge Perry continued to note, it is an adversarial system-At some point, he will draw that line, and I believe JB is crossing it with this motion.
Both parties need to be advocated-Casey and the people of Florida...it is life or death potentially for both-Casey facing the DP and society facing a killer on their hands if she is freed. Of course, that last one would be MOO.

 

[Marina2]

As Judge Perry continued to note, it is an adversarial system-At some point, he will draw that line, and I believe JB is crossing it with this motion.
Both parties need to be advocated-Casey and the people of Florida...it is life or death potentially for both-Casey facing the DP and society facing a killer on their hands if she is freed. Of course, that last one would be MOO.

Exactly. "Death is different." This case is not only different for the defendant but for the victim and society as well. KC is facing the DP for a very good reason. Judge Perry will balance KC's right to a fair trial with the state's right to bring justice for Caylee and to protect society against KC. The defense will be surprised when he does draw that line.

 

[logicalgirl]

[cut]
From my understanding of Steele the prosecution does not have to convince a majority of Jurors that a SPECIFIC aggravating factor exists. Instead, a majority of Jurors must agree that ANY aggravating factor exists.

Whoa! A cloaked legal mind in our midst - Outstanding - Love your posts....

:bow:!