KC defense team.What now?

[Wudge]

So when and how does the the judge's opinion (as the 13th juror) as to the reasonableness of the explanation have effect?

Trial judges assess the evidence just as the jury does. A jury that returns a guilty verdict can find the verdict reversed and the defendant acquitted by the Judge based on insufficient evidence to support the conviction, or the Judge can rule that the verdict was contrary to the law or against the weight of the evidence and order a new trial.


I should note that trial Judges do not have the right or the power to overturn a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[kathyn2]

99.9% of people see thru lies and manipulation. I saw it in the westerfield trial and the peterson trial. Most jurors don't fall for lies and deception and thats about all the defense has in this case. Their client has done nothing but lie from the beginning and never told the truth to LE. The truth isn't going to come out now from that side either.

I believe the prosecution has got tons of evidence against KC that we have no idea about. I think KC is going down easy. She has no reasonable explanation for her behavior, the type of searches she was doing, a dead body in her trunk, chloroform and the myriad of other evidence we haven't even seen yet. And her behavior, which jurors take great notes in and often convict on was atrocious. Even to this day it is atrocious. She has no love for that child and looked just happy as a lark and beaming once she was gone.

 

[Devon]

Trial judges assess the evidence just as the jury does. A jury that returns a guilty verdict can find the verdict reversed and the defendant acquitted by the Judge based on insufficient evidence to support the conviction, or the Judge can rule that the verdict was contrary to the law or against the weight of the evidence and order a new trial.


I should note that trial Judges do not have the right or the power to overturn a "not guilty" verdict.

Okay, and thanks again for the clear explanation.......I find it 'reasonable'.:biggrin:

 

[JBean]

The thread here is not to discuss other posters, but rather to discuss the defense.
It is a violation here at WS to do otherwise. A poster can voluntarily choose to reveal any personal information as they see fit.

 

[impatientredhead]

There is no such thing as accidental homicide. Homicide in one of three types of violent death; the other two being accidental death and suicide. In medic-legal language... http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/1/9/8/p201984_index.html

Also, something helpful to review is the difference in CAUSE and MANNER of death. JMO, as always, on the last sentence.

You are correct, the wording I was looking at was from this and changed then change the wording.

excusable homicide
: homicide that is committed by accident or misfortune by a person doing a lawful act by lawful means with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent and that is excused under the law with no criminal punishment imposed; also : [SIZE=-1]JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE[/SIZE] in this entry

 

[Pedrosmom]

Cite any person who has ever testified as an expert on: how Mothers who kill their children act.

If there is no evidence, then in their opening statement, a prosecutor cannot say: the evidence will show. Nor can they argue evidence that has not been presented during trial in closing arguments.

HTH

Jill Korbin

http://www.aaanet.org/press/motherskillingchildren.htm

 

[JWG]

99.9% of people see thru lies and manipulation. I saw it in the westerfield trial and the peterson trial. Most jurors don't fall for lies and deception and thats about all the defense has in this case. Their client has done nothing but lie from the beginning and never told the truth to LE. The truth isn't going to come out now from that side either.

I believe the prosecution has got tons of evidence against KC that we have no idea about. I think KC is going down easy. She has no reasonable explanation for her behavior, the type of searches she was doing, a dead body in her trunk, chloroform and the myriad of other evidence we haven't even seen yet. And her behavior, which jurors take great notes in and often convict on was atrocious. Even to this day it is atrocious. She has no love for that child and looked just happy as a lark and beaming once she was gone.

I agree that the prosecution has released very little of the evidence they actually have, and much of what they have will be quite damaging to the defense. But I think the chloroform searches and chloroform in the trunk are coincidence and can be explained away easily (and probably factually) by the defense.

I posted at length my thoughts on what was really behind the chloroform searches. I note that the actual websites Casey visited after searching for chloroform is not known - that information has not been released. I suspect that the prosecution released what they did as a form of pressure on the grandparents to elicit cooperation. If the websites visited were actually meaningful I think that information would have been released as well.

As for chloroform in the trunk, my initial hypothesis was that is was formed due to chlorinated water in Caylee's lungs (I have believed she drowned accidentally) reacting with the organics in decompositional fluids. That still may be true.

However, when I learned pesticide containers were seized in the latest search, my first thought was that pesticide was used to kill the flies and maggots found in the trunk after the car was picked up from the tow yard. So I searched "chloroform pesticide -anthony" (nowadays one needs to add that to a search to eliminate references to this case). I found this reference:

The major use for chloroform (CMR 1989) is the manufacture of the refrigerant HCFC-22. [snip] It is also used as a dry-cleaning spot remover, in fire extinguishers, as an intermediate in the manufacture of dyes and pesticides, and as a fumigant (Deshon 1979).

Now what I think may have happened is that Cindy tried to clean the trunk by first spraying the bugs with a pesticide and then using dry-cleaning fluid to clean the carpet. I don't think she did this to hide evidence. She may have honestly thought at the time that the bag of garbage was the source of the smell. This was done before she called Amy to get Casey. Honest mistake. Not telling or admitting to LE that she did this, however, is obstruction.

Obviously the seizure of pesticides and other household items was done in part to possibly eliminate pesticides and dry-cleaning fluid as the source of the chloroform found in the car. Why those items were not seized in an earlier search once the presence of chloroform was detected is beyond me.

The net is that there are three plausible explanations for the chloroform in the trunk, and all three may very well be true.

 

[Wudge]

Jill Korbin

http://www.aaanet.org/press/motherskillingchildren.htm

The case or cases where she has testified as an expert in the field of "a Mothers behavior after she has killed her children" is?

 

[Wudge]

You are correct, the wording I was looking at was from this and changed then change the wording.

excusable homicide
: homicide that is committed by accident or misfortune by a person doing a lawful act by lawful means with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent and that is excused under the law with no criminal punishment imposed; also : [SIZE=-1]JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE[/SIZE] in this entry

Good post.

 

[Where's Andre]

The jury and the trial Judge (13th juror) must assess whether the defense's explanation for an item of evidence is reasonable. If it is, they must set that evidence aside. They cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

When the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, it is not a case of alternative explanations. Prosecutors could have a far more reasonable explanation, yet as long as the defense's explanation is reasonable, the jury cannot use the evidence to support a conviction.

(Appellate Jurists also review the evidence this way .)

To my eyes, a strict atoministic view rather than a holistic view of the evidence as supported by arguments on both sides is an unreasonable burden. It is the case that needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not individual atoms thereof.

Are you saying that an isolated non sequitur explanation for a single item of evidence, while reasonable in isolation, but doesn't fit the defense's case as a whole is sufficient to rise to such a level?

In such a strict interpretation, it seems defense could argue a completely disjointed and illogical case that stretches to meet each evidentiary item individually-- but as a whole doesn't hold water. While the procecution's case has the sole burden to flow logically and dare I say-- reasonably.

And where does the preponderance of evidence fit into this interpretation?

 

[bisaillon]

How will they ever be able to defend things she did after her daughter "allegedly" went missing.Things like (What she texted one of her friends ):
June 22, 8:05 a.m.
Hey, we should get together. Come out to Fusion. Ladies night 'til midnight. Give me a call.

I'm going to say go for insanity ,cause that's what all this stuff is....

 

[starpatch]

Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstanial evidence.

 

[Wudge]

To my eyes, a strict atoministic view rather than a holistic view of the evidence as supported by arguments on both sides is an unreasonable burden. It is the case that needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not individual atoms thereof.

Are you saying that an isolated non sequitur explanation for a single item of evidence, while reasonable in isolation, but doesn't fit the defense's case as a whole is sufficient to rise to such a level?

In such a strict interpretation, it seems defense could argue a completely disjointed and illogical case that stretches to meet each evidentiary item individually-- but as a whole doesn't hold water. While the procecution's case has the sole burden to flow logically and dare I say-- reasonably.

And where does the preponderance of evidence fit into this interpretation?

It's not illogical in our system of jurisprudence. It's law.

To prove Casey murder Caylee with premediatation, prosecutors need to show clear and unyielding evidence that proves four specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Those four elements are: intent (wilful), planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Based on the evidence we know of, that evidence does not appear to be available based on my assessment of the evidence.

The answer to your question regarding a "preponderance of the evidence", is that it is case specific.

If a case were to rest heavily or solely on a single piece of evidence, say an eyewitness, then that would also represent the preponderance of the evidence.

However, there are also eyewitness cases, say in a case of attempted sexual assault, where an eyewitness is absolutely certain that the defendant is the person who assaulted them, yet other items of exculpatory evidence points consistently and seemingly strongly away from that person -- such as traceable transactions that place the defendant in an area too far away to have likely commited an assault at that time. In such a case, the jury will have some significant sorting and weighing to do.

My experience has taught me that this is one type of case where a wrongful conviction is very possible.

Juries sometimes get caught up in a more likely than not evalution of the eyewitness, which is really the standard for probable cause, rather then a true assessment of whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt was presented. And since jury deliberations are secret, it's not easy to prove what happened in the jury room. Truth be told, Appellate Courts are extremely reluctant to go there, which I have long held to be a huge weakness in our jury system.

 

[Itzsue]

WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY FICTIONAL OPINION OF HOW THIS MIGHT GO DOWN:

So we are now watching the trial. and Baezs' opening statements are:

(JB speaking to the court):
We will prove that Casey didn't murder her daughter Caylee.
Casey gave a statement to police when she was first arrested that she "would lie and steal to get her daughter back." Well, Casey DID lie to police; there is NO "Zenaida Gonzales" and Casey STOLE money from anyone she could. Why??

Around March, 2008, Casey got involved with a bad bunch of people who assured her that by "joining them" she would make a lot of money and make herself a better life. In order to make money, she had to have money to 'invest' with them. Problem was, Casey had nothing, no job, no income. So she stole money however she could in order to prove her worth to them. When Casey's funds ran dry, "they" were angry. Casey was in waaaayyyy over her head. It was 'them' that took Caylee Marie as payback. Casey WAS given a script of instructions to follow if she wanted to get her baby back. Casey was given between 30 and 55 days to repay them. She was to say nothing to anyone; her family, friends, police, etc. Time ran out and Cindy blew the alarm off re Caylee missing.

Now fearing for her daughter's life, Casey lied to everyone about Caylee's whereabouts, even to the police, about the nanny, her job, etc.,etc. Casey was trying TO BUY TIME by lying. "They" also stole her car when Casey came to talk things over with them. The car was later found abandoned, towed, stinking to high heaven of decomp.

Please don't bash me too much...I am no lawyer and no fiction writer. I just want to know if anyone could add to or imagine such a defense. And if not, WHAT WILL HIS DEFENSE FOR CASEY BE????

 

[Jolynna]

WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY FICTIONAL OPINION OF HOW THIS MIGHT GO DOWN:

So we are now watching the trial. and Baezs' opening statements are:

(JB speaking to the court):
We will prove that Casey didn't murder her daughter Caylee.
Casey gave a statement to police when she was first arrested that she "would lie and steal to get her daughter back." Well, Casey DID lie to police; there is NO "Zenaida Gonzales" and Casey STOLE money from anyone she could. Why??

Around March, 2008, Casey got involved with a bad bunch of people who assured her that by "joining them" she would make a lot of money and make herself a better life. In order to make money, she had to have money to 'invest' with them. Problem was, Casey had nothing, no job, no income. So she stole money however she could in order to prove her worth to them. When Casey's funds ran dry, "they" were angry. Casey was in waaaayyyy over her head. It was 'them' that took Caylee Marie as payback. Casey WAS given a script of instructions to follow if she wanted to get her baby back. Casey was given between 30 and 55 days to repay them. She was to say nothing to anyone; her family, friends, police, etc. Time ran out and Cindy blew the alarm off re Caylee missing.

Now fearing for her daughter's life, Casey lied to everyone about Caylee's whereabouts, even to the police, about the nanny, her job, etc.,etc. Casey was trying TO BUY TIME by lying. "They" also stole her car when Casey came to talk things over with them. The car was later found abandoned, towed, stinking to high heaven of decomp.

Please don't bash me too much...I am no lawyer and no fiction writer. I just want to know if anyone could add to or imagine such a defense. And if not, WHAT WILL HIS DEFENSE FOR CASEY BE????

Casey had her car until June 27. AL saw Casey put gas in it June 20. He saw her standing close to it June 27. Casey is probaby on video from the parking lot June 27. They neighbors saw Casey and her car June 17, 18 & 19. Casey's phone pings place her there also.

Plus, Casey was telling people and texting about the "smell" of her car and the dead animal plastered onto it.

Too many people saw Casey with her car for her to say it was stolen.

 

[impatientredhead]

Casey had her car until June 27. AL saw Casey put gas in it June 20. He saw her standing close to it June 27. Casey is probaby on video from the parking lot June 27. They neighbors saw Casey and her car June 17, 18 & 19. Casey's phone pings place her there also.

Plus, Casey was telling people and texting about the "smell" of her car and the dead animal plastered onto it.

Too many people saw Casey with her car for her to say it was stolen.

And saying that your daughter was kidnapped and killed by people you were conspiring to commit felonies with would get you life or the DP in the state of Florida. In that situation not reporting the kidnapping I would think would make you a participant in it as well?

 

[gitana1]

Cite any person who has ever testified as an expert on: how Mothers who kill their children act.

If there is no evidence, then in their opening statement, a prosecutor cannot say: the evidence will show. Nor can they argue evidence that has not been presented during trial in closing arguments.

HTH

The behavior of the defendant before and after the death of the victim does often come into play in murder cases. And, you certainly don't need an expert to explain how an innocent defendant or guilty one would act. Most jurors are able to connect the dots themselves. Here are some examples of prosecutors doping exactly what you say they cannot - telling that the evidence will show the defendant acted in a manner that points to their guilt. These are only two of many cases, but just ones I could find very quickly:

"In his opening statement, Prosecutor Greg Davis told the jury, the state of Texas and the country that 'the real Darlie Routier is a self-centered woman, a materialistic woman and a woman cold enough to murder her own children.' His case was built on the premise that Ms. Routier, angry over losing her money, her freedom, and her figure, brutally and savagely stabbed her two young sons to death while they slept, then staged a crime scene and blamed an intruder." http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/MediaArticles/Good/Good3.html
Also quoted in:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=6451238&page=1

"REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — As opening statements began Tuesday in the double-murder trial of Scott Peterson, prosecutors started detailing a case they hope will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson killed his pregnant wife and unborn child.
Prosecutor Rick Distaso told jurors that Scott Peterson called his mother-in-law that afternoon and said he had returned from a fishing trip to an empty house — though he allegedly later told the uncle of his wife Laci that he was golfing all day.
'He says, "Mom, Laci's missing,"' Distaso told jurors. 'Right then, Sharon Rocha knew that things were very seriously wrong.'
By nightfall, police and family were investigating a missing person report, which would unfold into the case that captivated the nation.
'It's Christmas Eve, there's a woman who's eight months pregnant who is missing under very mysterious circumstances,' Distaso told jurors, over objections from defense attorneys. 'They're looking for evidence of a burglary. They're looking for evidence of a robbery. There is nothing out of place.'...Rocha joined investigators in a panicked search of garbage cans at a fog-shrouded park near the couple's Modesto home, where Laci Peterson used to walk the family's golden retriever. Distaso described Scott Peterson as terse with family and unable to tell police what he had been trying to catch on his fishing trip to San Francisco Bay.
By Christmas Day, Peterson was more engaged and talking in ways that Distaso suggested point to his guilt. For example, he said, Peterson called police to ask if they were using cadaver-sniffing dogs to search the park. 'We haven't come to the conclusion yet that Laci Peterson is dead,' Distaso said the officer told Peterson. 'That kind of sets the stage for this entire case.'...
Prosecutors have had more than a year to prepare their case — which California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called a "slam dunk" on the day authorities arrested Peterson. But the lack of direct evidence linking Peterson to the murders has turned the case from a sure thing to a spin zone of circumstantial evidence for prosecutors, legal experts say. Prosecutors don't have a murder weapon or even a cause of death.
The main focus of the case is shaping up to be how tight a web the prosecution can spin, and how ably the defense can explain away Peterson's behavior following his wife's disappearance.
On Tuesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi gave jurors the standard admonishment that circumstantial evidence cannot lead to a finding of guilt unless the facts 'cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.'
But circumstantial evidence shouldn't be underestimated, said Bill Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor.'The jury will be directed that circumstantial evidence is just as compelling as direct evidence,' Sullivan told Fox News. 'Circumstantial or not, all this evidence can lead to a guilty verdict. It is the collection of circumstantial evidence, it is the totality ... shown time after time, example after example it will point in one direction.' Sullivan said he feels that the prosecution will be able to argue that 'Scott had the motive and the opportunity at the exclusion of all others.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121355,00.html

 

[JohnVaughanCauthen]

How will they ever be able to defend things she did after her daughter "allegedly" went missing.Things like (What she texted one of her friends ):
June 22, 8:05 a.m.
Hey, we should get together. Come out to Fusion. Ladies night 'til midnight. Give me a call.

I'm going to say go for insanity ,cause that's what all this stuff is....

Why doesn't the defense bring up the fact that Kiomarie Cruz tesitfied she heard a little girl say "mommy mommy mommy" to Casey during a phone conversation on July 9th. Casey answered "Not now honey, I'm on the phone."

Her lawyers should be pointing out that simple documented fact.

Then you can't say Casey partied after her daugher was dead. Her lawyers are letting a lot of the damage be done.

Link to Kiomarie Cruz interview Go to page 8, line 15 of the interview.

And look at page 17, line 23 for the exact date.

 

[Wudge]

The behavior of the defendant before and after the death of the victim does often come into play in murder cases. And, you certainly don't need an expert to explain how an innocent defendant or guilty one would act. Most jurors are able to connect the dots themselves. Here are some examples of prosecutors doping exactly what you say they cannot - telling that the evidence will show the defendant acted in a manner that points to their guilt. These are only two of many cases, but just ones I could find very quickly:

"In his opening statement, Prosecutor Greg Davis told the jury, the state of Texas and the country that 'the real Darlie Routier is a self-centered woman, a materialistic woman and a woman cold enough to murder her own children.' His case was built on the premise that Ms. Routier, angry over losing her money, her freedom, and her figure, brutally and savagely stabbed her two young sons to death while they slept, then staged a crime scene and blamed an intruder." http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/MediaArticles/Good/Good3.html
Also quoted in:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=6451238&page=1

"REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — As opening statements began Tuesday in the double-murder trial of Scott Peterson, prosecutors started detailing a case they hope will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson killed his pregnant wife and unborn child.
Prosecutor Rick Distaso told jurors that Scott Peterson called his mother-in-law that afternoon and said he had returned from a fishing trip to an empty house — though he allegedly later told the uncle of his wife Laci that he was golfing all day.
'He says, "Mom, Laci's missing,"' Distaso told jurors. 'Right then, Sharon Rocha knew that things were very seriously wrong.'
By nightfall, police and family were investigating a missing person report, which would unfold into the case that captivated the nation.
'It's Christmas Eve, there's a woman who's eight months pregnant who is missing under very mysterious circumstances,' Distaso told jurors, over objections from defense attorneys. 'They're looking for evidence of a burglary. They're looking for evidence of a robbery. There is nothing out of place.'...Rocha joined investigators in a panicked search of garbage cans at a fog-shrouded park near the couple's Modesto home, where Laci Peterson used to walk the family's golden retriever. Distaso described Scott Peterson as terse with family and unable to tell police what he had been trying to catch on his fishing trip to San Francisco Bay.
By Christmas Day, Peterson was more engaged and talking in ways that Distaso suggested point to his guilt. For example, he said, Peterson called police to ask if they were using cadaver-sniffing dogs to search the park. 'We haven't come to the conclusion yet that Laci Peterson is dead,' Distaso said the officer told Peterson. 'That kind of sets the stage for this entire case.'...
Prosecutors have had more than a year to prepare their case — which California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called a "slam dunk" on the day authorities arrested Peterson. But the lack of direct evidence linking Peterson to the murders has turned the case from a sure thing to a spin zone of circumstantial evidence for prosecutors, legal experts say. Prosecutors don't have a murder weapon or even a cause of death.
The main focus of the case is shaping up to be how tight a web the prosecution can spin, and how ably the defense can explain away Peterson's behavior following his wife's disappearance.
On Tuesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi gave jurors the standard admonishment that circumstantial evidence cannot lead to a finding of guilt unless the facts 'cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.'
But circumstantial evidence shouldn't be underestimated, said Bill Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor.'The jury will be directed that circumstantial evidence is just as compelling as direct evidence,' Sullivan told Fox News. 'Circumstantial or not, all this evidence can lead to a guilty verdict. It is the collection of circumstantial evidence, it is the totality ... shown time after time, example after example it will point in one direction.' Sullivan said he feels that the prosecution will be able to argue that 'Scott had the motive and the opportunity at the exclusion of all others.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121355,00.html

Correct counselor. Juries can take after-the-fact behavior into account but only as corroborative evidence. However, that was not the point. The point was and remains that you won't find expert testimony in the field of "how people should behave after they have allegedly committed a crime".

As for Darlie Routier, she is in my top ten list of likely wrongful convictions as is Scott Peterson. Jurors clearly took her post-death birthday event at the cemetary behavior into account. Some jurors allegedly considered it the best evidence.

In the same vein, another woman convicted of murder who was high on my list of likely wrongful convictions was Cynthia Sommer. Jurors took her behavior after the alleged murder of her husband into account, significantly so. However, they ignored the testimony of a defense expert who testified that if Todd Sommer had died of arsenic poisoning, then arsenic should have been found in all of his major organs. It wasn't.

I suspect you know that additional testing showed that the defense expert was correct. Cynthia's verdict was overturned. She is now free.

(And they heard him say before he passed out of sight, Merry Xmas to all, and to all a good night.)

 

[Brini]

I think she was been "setting up" George or Lee for the fall in case the body was found with her allegations of sexual abuse. I believe that is what she will go with...............one of them killed Caylee because she was being abused too.

I wouldn't put it past her.