KC defense team.What now?

[Hot Dogs]

As best I know, prosecutors have dropped the death penalty, nothing more.

The child neglect charge was dropped, yes?

 

[Jolynna]

You make it sound as if they are just presenting a flimsy case and want to convict an innocent person? Why wouldn't they just want a jury that will understand the facts and deliver a verdict accordingly? Your posts make it seem like they are on some kind of witch hunt. Just b/c they don't have a video of kc comitting the crime doesn't mean they cannot present enough evidence that any reasonable person could reasonably conclude that she committed this crime. I have yet to hear one thing from the defense that would give me any reasonable doubt, and this zanny story will have them ROFL.

I agree.

My left-brained husband just agreed with Wudge. He thinks that a scientific & logical person would give more weight to problems with the case raised by the defense and that the uneducated would go more with gut feelings.

However, both my husband and I think the evidence against Casey is overwhelming.

The Zanny defense has to be the worst defense ever! Scott P.'s gypsies or Diane D.'s bushy-haired stranger COULD have happened.

 

[Jolynna]

I may be wrong, but I thought it was Anthony R. (the cop), who said Casey can come, but not Caylee. :waitasec:

Both Tony's did.

Tony L. told Casey on June 15/16 that SHE could stay with him but not Caylee.

 

[Jolynna]

It's unlikely that she wrapped duct tape around her own mouth, crawled inside two bags, and placed herself in the woods. I've believed all along that the death was an accident, but if it's true that Caylee's mouth was duct-taped, that blows the accident theory right out of the water, IMO.

Yes it does.

Getting the duct tape and wrapping around Caylee's mouth is malicious planning.

 

[Hot Dogs]

The Zanny defense has to be the worst defense ever!

And that is the reason why I won't be a bit surprised if her defense team doesn't even use the "Zanny defense".

 

[Jolynna]

That would be a tough one. Defense could stipulate that this ZFG wasn't the one alleged by Casey (as they are doing now). The only evidence that could come out of that trial is testimony from ZFG herself that it is not her, good for prosecution, as we already know that Casey will testify that it is not her.

The murder, per se, evidence won't be part of that trial. I'd be shocked if the civil action is tried before the criminal case.

It looks like it is going to be.

Criminal charges were filed against an ex-employee whom I also sued civilly.

She was deposed for the civil suit despite an upcoming criminal trial. My lawyer said if she took the fifth, jurors in the criminal trial would be told and could make inferences because of it.

The defendant didn't take the fifth and talked for 3 hours. As a result of what she said in the deposition, I asked for and received a summary judgement for 3 times the amount stolen.

The case has YET to go to criminal trial.

 

[Devon]

There may not be enough evidence for a Murder 1 conviction but certainly Casey is culpable to some degree for the death of her daughter. What I don't understand is why her attorney has not attempted to plea down to lesser charges. Isn't he doing her a disservice by taking this all or nothing approach?

Personally I have a feeling that something might change fairly soon, although I haven't a clue who will blink first, the prosecution or the defence. The impression I get is that the prosecution, faced with fairly strong evidence that Caylee was dead and a suspect who was not giving them anything other than BS, decided to go for broke and let KC have it with both barrels, probably hoping that either she would crack under the pressure of facing LWOP or even the big needle, or that they would quickly find Caylee's body and some strong evidence of murder pointing right at KC.

At present, there is no evidence of cause of death, no confession, and (I suspect) not much left to be revealed in respect of evidence that would support the murder1 charge. That's just my feeling at the moment, but since this whole case is crazy, I am preparing to have my 'gast' flabbered' at any moment!

 

[Jolynna]

If prosecutors have more evidence now versus what they presented to the Grand, why did they drop the death penalty?

For the same reason California didn't pursue the death penalty after O.J. killed two people. The state was afraid a jury would be reluctant to sentence a "nice guy" celebrity to death.

Casey is a "pretty young mom" with a high-powered defense.

 

[sarah7855]

Personally I have a feeling that something might change fairly soon, although I haven't a clue who will blink first, the prosecution or the defence. The impression I get is that the prosecution, faced with fairly strong evidence that Caylee was dead and a suspect who was not giving them anything other than BS, decided to go for broke and let KC have it with both barrels, probably hoping that either she would crack under the pressure of facing LWOP or even the big needle, or that they would quickly find Caylee's body and some strong evidence of murder pointing right at KC.

At present, there is no evidence of cause of death, no confession, and (I suspect) not much left to be revealed in respect of evidence that would support the murder1 charge. That's just my feeling at the moment, but since this whole case is crazy, I am preparing to have my 'gast' flabbered' at any moment!

Bolded by me.
Respecfully, would you mind elaborating on why you think there is not much evidence to be revealed? Not trying to be rude, I'd just like to hear your opinion. TIA!

 

[Marina2]

Innocent people take pleas everyday in every state in this country.

I did not define reasonable doubt as a 1% error rate. I offered up, as a stalking horse, an error rate that is opposed to a level of certainty.

If you go back and read the template definition that the fifty states worked off of in their their review of what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" represents, you will find it starts with: "The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime."

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is equated to a level of certainty. Since it is not absolute certainty, errors will be made (wrongful convictions).

As for my position on the reliability of evidence required to support a conviction, my holding is that the level of certainty should exceed 99%.

HTH

I agree that innocent people take pleas everyday. It accounts for many of the wrongly accused. It is said that 95% of all felony charges are settled with a plea. I wonder how many of this 95% are innocent of any wrongdoing. Many who are innocent are threatened with more serious charges or sentences if they proceed to a jury trial. Out of fear they plea to a charge they never committed.

snipped for content:

The answer to your question on whether reasonable doubt equals absolute certainty is: No.

Still, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (burden of proof requirement) hurdle is extremely high, something less than a one percent error rate -- courts will never say this and prosecutors cring when they hear it said.

The statement above is what I mistakenly thought was your defintion of reasonable doubt. I apologize for misinterpreting your statement.

I went back and reread the template that you were so kind to post in order to help with my question. However, I'm still confused as to what it means. To me, it contradicts itself.
snipped from template:
" Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

The problem I have with that statement is the only thing I would act upon without hesitation is that which I am absolutely certain of. If I'm not absolutely certain of something, there will always be some hesitation before I act on it. Then it states that it does not mean "absolute certainty". So, for me as a juror, I would be confused as to the "level of certainty" I would have to have before convicting. I hope you can understand what I'm saying. I'm really not trying to be hard headed! First it says that I must have the level of certainty that I would act without hesitation in the most important of my own affairs then it says that I don't have to be absolutely certain. Contradictory to me.

Is there really much evidence at all that a prosecutor could present that is more than 99% reliable? It seems to me all evidence can be discredited to at least 1%. Even a full blown confession can be discredited to that degree. What evidence would you, as a juror, consider to be greater than 99% reliable and thus allow you to vote guilty (of felony murder or premeditated murder) in this case?

 

[concentric]

Well, I think it's ultimately KC's call. Will she continue with the lying, which, of course you are not supposed to do on the stand, but hey, who pays attention to society's mores anyway?

or will she fess up to the defense and they will claim that she was/is emotionally enmeshed in some inescapable family dynamic that led her down this path?

 

[Devon]

Bolded by me.
Respecfully, would you mind elaborating on why you think there is not much evidence to be revealed? Not trying to be rude, I'd just like to hear your opinion. TIA!

This, of course, is just my own speculation, but it's mainly the ME's determination of 'homicide by undermined means' that makes me think they probably don't have sufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder1. If they found some evidence at the disposal site that showed how Caylee died, I would have thought the ME could have stated a cause of death. It appears they may have found something linking the body with the A's home, hence the mad scramble to get the latest search warrant, but just making a link between the disposal of the remains and KC does not prove how Caylee died.

So far, we have evidence that shows that Caylee probably died at home on 16 June, that KC was probably present, and that Caylee's body was probably hidden in the trunk of her car for xx number of days.LE may now have proof that KC placed Caylee's body where it has been discovered, but neither the final forensic reports from the FBI/body farm, nor apparently the toxicology reports from the autopsy will show how Caylee died. Similarly, none of the witness statements, nor the evidence of KC's actions after June 16 will prove how Caylee died. If they can't show how she died, how can they prove premeditated murder, or even aggravated child abuse, as opposed to accidental death or manslaughter?

So, unless they have a direct witness to the alleged premeditated murder, or other evidence to show that it was 1) premeditated, and 2) murder, they may struggle with that charge IMO.

P.S - I don't believe the 'duct tape around skull' story myself either, but if it is true, it obviously didn't help the ME to determine a cause of death.

Okay, shoot me down peeps, I've got my body armour on!

 

[Wudge]

I agree that innocent people take pleas everyday. It accounts for many of the wrongly accused. It is said that 95% of all felony charges are settled with a plea. I wonder how many of this 95% are innocent of any wrongdoing. Many who are innocent are threatened with more serious charges or sentences if they proceed to a jury trial. Out of fear they plea to a charge they never committed.

snipped for content:

The statement above is what I mistakenly thought was your defintion of reasonable doubt. I apologize for misinterpreting your statement.

I went back and reread the template that you were so kind to post in order to help with my question. However, I'm still confused as to what it means. To me, it contradicts itself.
snipped from template:
" Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

The problem I have with that statement is the only thing I would act upon without hesitation is that which I am absolutely certain of. If I'm not absolutely certain of something, there will always be some hesitation before I act on it. Then it states that it does not mean "absolute certainty". So, for me as a juror, I would be confused as to the "level of certainty" I would have to have before convicting. I hope you can understand what I'm saying. I'm really not trying to be hard headed! First it says that I must have the level of certainty that I would act without hesitation in the most important of my own affairs then it says that I don't have to be absolutely certain. Contradictory to me.

Is there really much evidence at all that a prosecutor could present that is more than 99% reliable? It seems to me all evidence can be discredited to at least 1%. Even a full blown confession can be discredited to that degree. What evidence would you, as a juror, consider to be greater than 99% reliable and thus allow you to vote guilty (of felony murder or premeditated murder) in this case.

The less than one percent figure is mine. It's anything but what the general public will answer when you ask a person for a figure that represents the level of certainty that equates to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The typical range for that answer will range from 75% to 99%+ with a strong gathering in the low to mid 90%+ range, which greatly troubles me.

My experience has taught me that the level of certainty rises as the education level rises, which is one reason I have long advocated the need for professional jurors.

As for what evidence might best move me to a guilty posture, it would be strong inculpatory evidence that's supported by strong corroborative evidence. DNA, fingerprints, or similar physical evidence certainly would be at the top of my list. Mutiple eyewitness identification by two or more people who know the defendant would likely stand well too.

Regarding confessions, the answer is that it depends. If the defense claims the confession was coerced, I would listen closely to a defense storyline just as I would to a defense storyline that claimed LE planted, manufactured or shaped evidence.

I suspect that around 10 to 15% of wrongful convictions result from coerced confessions. I closely followed Martin Tankleff's case for close to fifteen years until the Court reversed his conviction around a year or two ago.

I would more than double the above 15% figure for wrongful convictions that result from LE planting, manufacturing or shaping evidence and/or result from prosecutors knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence.

In November, DNA evidence testing exonerated the Nebraska Six of their murder conviction back in 1985. They went to prison, because, by my measure, LE set them up.

And I highly suspect that Mike Nifong needs no introduction in this discussion. There are thousands of Mike Nifongs in D.A. offices all across our country.

As for the level of certainty that you would require, I suggest that you should use a figure that you would ask others to use if you or someone in your family were on trial.

HTH

 

[impatientredhead]

If prosecutors have more evidence now versus what they presented to the Grand, why did they drop the death penalty?

They did that before the body was found. We don't know at this time if they plan to reverse that decision.

 

[trac]

My experience has taught me that the level of certainty rises as the education level rises, which is one reason I have long advocated the need for professional jurors.

The problem with this, is that it would be against the consitution - no one would be judged by a jury of their peers

They system is flawed - there is no doubt - there is flaw in lawyers, DA, police, etc.

If no one can trust the system - well then why not when someone is arrested, they are automatically guilty and send them to a camp in the middle of nowhere - lets say Alaska or in the midwest - oh wait thats a movie already!

 

[Wudge]

My experience has taught me that the level of certainty rises as the education level rises, which is one reason I have long advocated the need for professional jurors.

The problem with this, is that it would be against the consitution - no one would be judged by a jury of their peers

True.

However, in a courtroom you have a professional behind the bench. You have a professional prosecuting the case. You have a professional defending his client. And we have a jury of amateurs.

If I were re-writing this area, at the very least, I would require potential jurors to score 80% or better on an applied logic test before they could enter the voir dire pool.

 

[trac]

True.

However, in a courtroom you have a professional behind the bench. You have a professional prosecuting the case. You have a professional defending his client. And we have a jury of amateurs.

If I were re-writing this area, at the very least, I would require potential jurors to score 80% or better on an applied logic test before they could enter the voir dire pool.

Still wouldn't work - not a jury of the accused peers -

Most likely 90% of the population wouldn't pass a test

Thats why the jury system works, its a random pick of an areas residents - and thats exactly what Casey will get

 

[sarah7855]

This, of course, is just my own speculation, but it's mainly the ME's determination of 'homicide by undermined means' that makes me think they probably don't have sufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder1. If they found some evidence at the disposal site that showed how Caylee died, I would have thought the ME could have stated a cause of death. It appears they may have found something linking the body with the A's home, hence the mad scramble to get the latest search warrant, but just making a link between the disposal of the remains and KC does not prove how Caylee died.

So far, we have evidence that shows that Caylee probably died at home on 16 June, that KC was probably present, and that Caylee's body was probably hidden in the trunk of her car for xx number of days.LE may now have proof that KC placed Caylee's body where it has been discovered, but neither the final forensic reports from the FBI/body farm, nor apparently the toxicology reports from the autopsy will show how Caylee died. Similarly, none of the witness statements, nor the evidence of KC's actions after June 16 will prove how Caylee died. If they can't show how she died, how can they prove premeditated murder, or even aggravated child abuse, as opposed to accidental death or manslaughter?

So, unless they have a direct witness to the alleged premeditated murder, or other evidence to show that it was 1) premeditated, and 2) murder, they may struggle with that charge IMO.

P.S - I don't believe the 'duct tape around skull' story myself either, but if it is true, it obviously didn't help the ME to determine a cause of death.

Okay, shoot me down peeps, I've got my body armour on!

Thank you for taking the time to post that, it is very well thought out and makes a lot of sense to me. I just wanted to add my two cents for this reason alone:
When the murder one indictment came down, I was shocked. I honestly didn't expect them to pursue such a charge, I really expected an aggravated manslaughter charge...based on exactly what you detailed above, the lack of definitive evidence that I saw at that point. That being said, my jaw hit the floor when I heard that the indictment was handed down in approximately 30 minutes. That's insanely quick. At that moment, the little fleeting "maybe they have something huge, hopefully they do!" thought that had been in the back of my head as this whole thing had played out was solidified. I understand that a GJ is only used to determine if charges should be filed against an accused, but for 1) the severity of the charges that were handed down, and 2) the speed at which they were delivered, there has to be more than preliminary odor analysis reports and interviews with college age kids saying that they never thought Casey would "do something like this", know what I mean? That's why I bolded the sentence in your post above. They must have something that shows premeditation, which would in turn make it murder. Why risk the gamble of going after murder if you can't back it up?

After re-reading your post, I also want to add that they filed murder one charges before Caylee's remains were found, so the evidence that backs up that charge was already there before the ME ruled the death as homicide by undetermined means. That being said, the ME not being able to make a more definitive ruling is a hurdle for the prosecution, but I think that the rest of the evidence alone, found both before Caylee was recovered as well as after, will be more than enough to link Casey to this murder, and I am also confident that they have enough to put together how she died. LE does not have to release information from an ongoing criminal investigation, which is why we haven't seen a whole lot yet. All of these questions that we have after viewing these preliminary reports and initial interviews, LE has answers to those because they have final, more definitive, detailed reports and in depth interviews. We will have all the answers to those questions in March...and personally, I can't wait!

 

[Wudge]

Still wouldn't work - not a jury of the accused peers -

Most likely 90% of the population wouldn't pass a test

Thats why the jury system works, its a random pick of an areas residents - and thats exactly what Casey will get

Incorrect. Jurors are eliminated for cause today.

ETA: I would not argue with your 90% figure.

 

[Devon]

Thank you for taking the time to post that, it is very well thought out and makes a lot of sense to me. I just wanted to add my two cents for this reason alone:
When the murder one indictment came down, I was shocked. I honestly didn't expect them to pursue such a charge, I really expected an aggravated manslaughter charge...based on exactly what you detailed above, the lack of definitive evidence that I saw at that point. That being said, my jaw hit the floor when I heard that the indictment was handed down in approximately 30 minutes. That's insanely quick. At that moment, the little fleeting "maybe they have something huge, hopefully they do!" thought that had been in the back of my head as this whole thing had played out was solidified. I understand that a GJ is only used to determine if charges should be filed against an accused, but for 1) the severity of the charges that were handed down, and 2) the speed at which they were delivered, there has to be more than preliminary odor analysis reports and interviews with college age kids saying that they never thought Casey would "do something like this", know what I mean? That's why I bolded the sentence in your post above. They must have something that shows premeditation, which would in turn make it murder. Why risk the gamble of going after murder if you can't back it up?

After re-reading your post, I also want to add that they filed murder one charges before Caylee's remains were found, so the evidence that backs up that charge was already there before the ME ruled the death as homicide by undetermined means. That being said, the ME not being able to make a more definitive ruling is a hurdle for the prosecution, but I think that the rest of the evidence alone, found both before Caylee was recovered as well as after, will be more than enough to link Casey to this murder, and I am also confident that they have enough to put together how she died. LE does not have to release information from an ongoing criminal investigation, which is why we haven't seen a whole lot yet. All of these questions that we have after viewing these preliminary reports and initial interviews, LE has answers to those because they have final, more definitive, detailed reports and in depth interviews. We will have all the answers to those questions in March...and personally, I can't wait!

I don't really know how indictments work. Does the GJ hear anything from the defence, or is it just a presentation of evidence and witness testimony for the prosecution? If the latter, then IMO George's testimony about the 'smell' in the trunk, the apparent evidence from Det. Melich about bruises seen on Caylee, plus KC's *advertiser censored*-a-bull nanny story and her party pics was likely more than enough to convince the jury that KC should face trial - BUT, the consideration they had to make was not whether she was guilty of deliberately murdering Caylee or not, but whether there was a case to answer and if she should be indicted and face trial. This is a far lower level of responsibility IMO for a jury to have placed upon them and so they are not obliged to struggle with the notions of 'reasonable doubt' and 'levels of certainty'. I think if I had been on that jury and presented only with an account of the lies, the stench in the car, the bruises, the pole dance slide show etc, it would probably have taken me all of 30 seconds to decide KC should stand trial, but making a decision in a murder trial itself is a whole different ball game.

As to what else LE has up it's sleeve, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.