Casey's Defense Team. What Now? #2

[Jolynna]

Now you are into which storyline (the evidence will show) will prosecutors tell to the jury. They can't do both.

I think when the state connects the dots it will be clear why they went the way they have.

You don't think there is enough evidence to prove premeditation. I think there is practically have enough NOW to be sure of it.

JMO

 

[Jolynna]

Bold by me. Also, some parents are monsters and the child becomes strong enough and determined enough not to follow that path. Yet, their child becomes a monster. Skipping a generation.

It is all complicated.

But, Casey was an adult. She had alternatives. Knowing what SOME people have survived the conditions Casey HAD to endure (sitting all day on the couch texting and surfing the web <her choice>) are not exactly heart breaking.

I will save my sympathy for defendants that truly have had to endure horrific adversity.

JMO

 

[countzero]

It is all complicated.

But, Casey was an adult. She had alternatives. Knowing what SOME people have survived the conditions Casey HAD to endure (all day on the couch texting and surfing the web <her choice>) are not exactly heart breaking.

I will save my sympathy for defendants that truly have had adversities to endure.

JMO

So true. Which is why I stated what I did. As an adult, I had to make the choice, either be like my parent or distance myself from it, learn from it and vowed not to follow that path of destruction.

I have no sympathy for KC or the A's. I have been there and made a different choice.

 

[maur33]

For every monster that chooses to kill her child that comes from a dysfunctional family there are hundreds from worse homes that strive to be different from their parents.

If we let everyone with a less than an ideal family background go free almost everyone would walk. That kind of thinking also doesn't give enough credit to those that suffer the most severe of severe abuse and THAT make better choices than Casey did.

Parents don't MAKE monsters. Monsters CHOOSE to be monsters. IMO

I am not suggesting that casey go free, in fact I don't think she should ever be a free woman.

You're right, she is a monster all on her own. There is no defense for her. Sorry if what I said bothered you so much.

 

[gitana1]

Now, I am really confused...........I am not an attorney, but pretty good with statutes, but the difference in these confuse me. I am going to have to take your word on these.

I am going to ask my brother to explain it a little more in depth where I can understand it. Why would they charge her with both if they do not intend to prosecute both? If the premeditated does not work then will the aggravated child abuse kick in?

I am sure I am just over complicating this, but I am interested in how it works.

Premeditated is when a person cold-bloodedly plans a killing and then does it. A murder like murder via aggravated child abuse would be that the death was not intended but is a result of a certain kind of abuse. The jury can only find casey guilty of one because they are two separate, different paths to guilt. They can present one to the jury and in reality, casey has been charged with only the first. However, if I understood correctly, Nancy Botwin cited a Florida case that show that if they also charge her with aggravated child abuse, which they have done, (and which she can be found guilty of at the same time she is found guilty of premeditated murder), then, the jury can, if they do not find enough evidence for premeditated murder in the prosecution's case, find her guilty of murder one via aggravated child abuse, even though that is a spearate charge she has not been charged with. It's a slick little loophole/technique. It allows the prosecution to present a case of premeditated murder, but to have jury insturctions which allow the jury to find casey guilty of that OR, if they do not find that the evidence fits such a charge, then they an find her guilty of the unintended death of her daughter via aggravated child abuse, which is also a first degree murder charge.
I think what Wudge is talking about is that when someone commits a felony, such as bank robbery (or here, perhaps, aggravated child abuse by chloroforming a kid to get her to sleep), and, in the course of the commission of that felony, someone dies, then the person who committed the felony, like the bank robbery, is guilty of the felony AND first degree murder. The thought behind it is if a person takes the risk of committing a serious crime and someone dies in the course of it, even though the criminal did not intend for that to happen, the criminal is charged in a way as oif they did intend for it to hppen. It's supposed to be a deterrent to crime.
However, Wudge keeps calling such a charge "felony murder" which can be confusing to some people because ALL murders are felonies.
But, I will not presume to speak for Wudge. He's smart enough to do that for himself!

 

[Pattymarie]

Now you are into which storyline (the evidence will show) will prosecutors tell to the jury. They can't do both.

A few questions and a comment.

1. Which storyline, in your opinion, is the best way to go?
2. I agree, she is innocent until proven guilty? With all the evidence that we know about...what do you believe the state can actually prove at this point?
3. What evidence do you think they may be holding back? And why?
4. It seems to me, a regular citizen, that there is no one else who could have done this horrible crime. If the state can't prove it, based on the law we the citizens have adopted, then we, as a society, deserve to have Casey back among us.
5. And one last thing, do you have a background in the law?

 

[Wudge]

A few questions and a comment.

1. Which storyline, in your opinion, is the best way to go?
2. I agree, she is innocent until proven guilty? With all the evidence that we know about...what do you believe the state can actually prove at this point?
3. What evidence do you think they may be holding back? And why?
4. It seems to me, a regular citizen, that there is no one else who could have done this horrible crime. If the state can't prove it, based on the law we the citizens have adopted, then we, as a society, deserve to have Casey back among us.
5. And one last thing, do you have a background in the law?

The storyline a prosecutor should use is one they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence we know of, I can't see how they could prove either the premeditated murder charge or the manslaughter charge.

I doubt prosecutors are holding back any significant inculpatory evidence. It's not the way high-profile cases are usually conducted, and neither prosecutors nor LE have looked good in recent weeks. If they had significant evidence they could leak, they would want almost assuredly have used it to offset loses in prestige and image.

Regarding the alleged horrible crime, you're assuming it was not an accident.

As regards my background, , through sixteen years of online posting, I've never divulged personals other than to admit being an old curmudgeon.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

However, Wudge keeps calling such a charge "felony murder" which can be confusing to some people because ALL murders are felonies.
But, I will not presume to speak for Wudge. He's smart enough to do that for himself!

This is not be the first time that I've heard the term "felony murder" is confusing. It can be unless you provide a hypo or you are talking with the parents or friends of those charged with felony murder.

Even then, high-school teenagers who hear a hypo that depicts a felony murder example are usually in disbelief (they usually think you are nuts at first). While parents or friends of those charged have a truly hard time (total disbelief at first) coming to grips with the reality that there really is such a concept in our system of jurisprudence -- first impulse can be to immediately find another attorney, someone who knows what they are talking about.

As for the term itself, "felony murder" is statute defined.

If you were to google those two words, I suspect you would discover this to be true. Most telling is that organizations that oppose "felony murder" also refer to it by those words. I'm sure we can agree that -- as clumsy or confusing as that word combination might be -- those organizations certainly should know what they are opposing.

(reposting example that shows the latter to be true)

http://felonymurderfl.org/resources/so-you-think-your-kids-are-safe/

 

[nancy botwin]

Now, I am really confused...........I am not an attorney, but pretty good with statutes, but the difference in these confuse me. I am going to have to take your word on these.

I am going to ask my brother to explain it a little more in depth where I can understand it. Why would they charge her with both if they do not intend to prosecute both? If the premeditated does not work then will the aggravated child abuse kick in?

I am sure I am just over complicating this, but I am interested in how it works.

Gitana explained the charges in greater depth above, but I just wanted to add my opinion--
I believe (and so do many legal pundits we see every night on tv) that the inclusion of Aggravated Child Abuse in Count II of the indictment is effectively the bootstrap for the Felony Murder charge (ie a First Degree Murder arising from a homicide caused by agg. child abuse). Casey's charged with First Degree Murder and it doesn't matter how the jurors arrive at that verdict.

Say you and I are on a 2-person jury. I think Casey overdosed Caylee on chloroform (agg. child abuse) and this caused her death. I don't think she necessarily intended or planned to kill Caylee, but I think the drugging did kill her. I vote guilty of First Degree Murder per 782.04 (1)(a) (2) (h).

Say you think Casey planned to kill Caylee since the day she was born and that Casey had an elaborate and thorough plan and executed it, causing Caylee's death. You vote guilty of First Degree Murder per 782.04 (1) (a) (1).
We have vastly different views of the crime but both of our views support a conviction of First Degree Murder, as a matter of law.
Our two-person jury would have just convicted Casey of First Degree Murder.

The indictment simply allows for two avenues of conviction on the First Degree Murder charge. The prosecution doesn't have to pick one theory-- they just present the evidence, seek jury instructions on all the indicted counts and then turn it over to the jury.

 

[nancy botwin]

The point has been and remains that Casey has not been charged with felony murder. She has been charged with premeditated murder -- prosecutors dropped the death penalty in December.

The facts in this case do not support simultaneous charges -- both premeditated murder and felony murder.

To obtain murder one punishment in this case, prosecutors must select between a storyline of felony murder or a storyline that claims premeditation. The facts will not support both.

HTH

We can agree to disagree. I read the indictment as charging Casey with First Degree Murder and subsequently affording for either a "premeditation" theory or a "Felony Murder Rule via agg. child abuse" theory. Case law I've cited supports this reading.

It seems you have some disdain for the Felony Murder Rule and so perhaps we can meet in the middle here-- I find the Felony Murder Rule specious and distressing in many circumstances-- especially those involving drug trade and trafficking. I do, however, see the justice and logic in the Felony Murder Rule when the underlying felony is in fact violent-- like in the case of aggravated child abuse.

 

[accordn2me]

This is not be the first time that I've heard the term "felony murder" is confusing. <snip>

It's confusing because someone gave it the wrong name. :violin:

ETA: Apparently, the British are guilty.

 

[5stars]

They will try for the dna defect. why else would they want GA,CA and LA dna info?

 

[impatientredhead]

We can agree to disagree. I read the indictment as charging Casey with First Degree Murder and subsequently affording for either a "premeditation" theory or a "Felony Murder Rule via agg. child abuse" theory. Case law I've cited supports this reading.

It seems you have some disdain for the Felony Murder Rule and so perhaps we can meet in the middle here-- I find the Felony Murder Rule specious and distressing in many circumstances-- especially those involving drug trade and trafficking. I do, however, see the justice and logic in the Felony Murder Rule when the underlying felony is in fact violent-- like in the case of aggravated child abuse.

Totally in agreement with your last couple of posts. Very well explained.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

It seems you have some disdain for the Felony Murder Rule and so perhaps we can meet in the middle here-- I find the Felony Murder Rule specious and distressing in many circumstances-- especially those involving drug trade and trafficking. I do, however, see the justice and logic in the Felony Murder Rule when the underlying felony is in fact violent-- like in the case of aggravated child abuse.

For some vicious crimes, a felony murder statute makes it easy to do the right thing (5 thugs rape and kill an old lady). For some crimes, felony murder makes it easy to administer cruel and unusual punishment and thereby totally savage lives that do not deserve equal punishment (one size fits all).

Net, felony murder does not allow for proportional punishment. So I'm against it. If you were the Mother of the daughter in my hypo, I suspect you would feel that way too.

Like Grand Juries, states have been doing away with felony murder. I don't think either will exist in thirty years.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Say you and I are on a 2-person jury. I think Casey overdosed Caylee on chloroform (agg. child abuse) and this caused her death. I don't think she necessarily intended or planned to kill Caylee, but I think the drugging did kill her. I vote guilty of First Degree Murder per 782.04 (1)(a) (2) (h).

Say you think Casey planned to kill Caylee since the day she was born and that Casey had an elaborate and thorough plan and executed it, causing Caylee's death. You vote guilty of First Degree Murder per 782.04 (1) (a) (1).
We have vastly different views of the crime but both of our views support a conviction of First Degree Murder, as a matter of law.
Our two-person jury would have just convicted Casey of First Degree Murder.

Incorrect.

As a matter of law. Your jury of two could not render a guilty verdict.

One juror found that the evidence supported the premeditated murder. One juror did not.

Juries cannot blend charges to arrive at a guilty verdict.

HTH

 

[Indigo]

I would not call it overwhelming, but the judge would likely allow prosecutors to argue such.

(Was the cloth stuffed in her mouth and was chloroform on the cloth?).

Thanks for your response, Wudge. In my hypo, the cloth contains higher levels of chloroform than can be explained by decomposition. The concentration of chloroform inside the bag is also higher than the expected levels. No individual compounds used in the making chlororform are found inside the bag or in the surrounding area. Samples of the surrounding area (air, groundwater, etc.) show that the highest concentration of chloroform is contained within the bag.

All testing for chloroform was done prior to any other forensic testing.

The cloth is affixed in such a way that inhalation would have been unavoidable. There is no evidence that the cloth or tape was ever removed by the perpetrator.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks for your response, Wudge. In my hypo, the cloth contains higher levels of chloroform than can be explained by decomposition. The concentration of chloroform inside the bag is also higher than the expected levels. No individual compounds used in the making chlororform are found inside the bag or in the surrounding area. Samples of the surrounding area (air, groundwater, etc.) show that the highest concentration of chloroform is contained within the bag.

All testing for chloroform was done prior to any other forensic testing.

The cloth is affixed in such a way that inhalation would have been unavoidable. There is no evidence that the cloth or tape was ever removed by the perpetrator.

For both the premeditated murder charge and the manslaughter charge, jurors would have to speculate that Caylee died from chloroform. Of course, speculation is not permitted.

 

[Indigo]

For both the premeditated murder charge and the manslaughter charge, jurors would have to speculate that Caylee died from chloroform. Of course, speculation is not permitted.

The cloth and tape are still affixed --obviously no attempt to revive the child was made. Still no premeditation?

 

[Wudge]

The cloth and tape are still affixed --obviously no attempt to revive the child was made. Still no premeditation?

(You would be speculating that the tape and cloth relate to the cause of death, which is undetermined.)

The M.E. did not conclude that the manner of death was murder. What premises and evidence (that we know of) supporting those premises would allow jurors to reliably and validly conclude it was murder and that the murder was premeditated?

 

[kageykaren]

Can defense use the, "Temporary derangement" as a defense? Thanks Wudge!