Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

Can the aggravated child abuse charge stand alone or does it have to be merged with another capital murder charge at trial? I keep hearing/reading different points of view.

TIA.

I guess the easiest way to put it is that Casey could be convicted of aggravated child abuse "standing alone," but if she is also convicted of something which "includes" aggravated child abuse, like felony murder based on aggravated child abuse as the felony, the charges would merge and she would be convicted just of the higher charge.

I'm not sure what the result would be in Florida if she's convicted of aggravated child abuse and also INTENTIONAL murder and then aggravated child abuse is used as an aggravating circumstance. :waitasec: Hopefully someone can catch R Hornsby and ask him that one.

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess the easiest way to put it is that Casey could be convicted of aggravated child abuse "standing alone," but if she is also convicted of something which "includes" aggravated child abuse, like felony murder based on aggravated child abuse as the felony, the charges would merge and she would be convicted just of the higher charge.

I'm not sure what the result would be in Florida if she's convicted of aggravated child abuse and also INTENTIONAL murder and then aggravated child abuse is used as an aggravating circumstance. :waitasec: Hopefully someone can catch R Hornsby and ask him that one.

Actually I think you just described it perfectly. I just like to know what the big picture is so I can concentrate on the details as they come up, so you've explained it just great thanks.

 

[logicalgirl]

So now that we have the aggravating factors..I have an additional question-- under what factor would this/does this have fallen/fall (I got it from the 5/13/10 news thread here at WS):

In a report, NBC’s Kerry Sanders explained that Caylee’s official cause of death (”homicide by undetermined means”) was “a rare conclusion by the medical examiner who had limited forensics to work with.”

Sanders said Perry had established “a fast-paced agenda.”

And Sanders talked to former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. His view: “If the prosecution can prove that a mother intentionally murdered her own child in order to pursue a wild social life, then this is indeed a death-penalty case.”

Thanks!

Good grief - how about if they just proved a mother intentionally murdered her own child - period! That's a death penalty case right there if the child is under 12 - what kind of an answer was that?

 

[Paintr]

Bringing this over from another thread...

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

Thank you kindly for the help.

 

[okiedokietoo]

In the last hearing AL was talking about the Motion for a Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravated Circumstances and something about a Spencer Hearing. The State responded by telling the Judge that ....the 45 day requirement was waived by defense. What was that in reference to?

http://www.wftv.com/video/23517144/index.html
AL at 29:23
States response at 30:45

I ask because well I don't know lol and because Al does not look too happy about hearing the States response

 

[AZlawyer]

Bringing this over from another thread...

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

Thank you kindly for the help.

The kind of "premeditation" needed to prove first-degree murder is just basically enough time to realize what you're doing and stop. The type of "premeditation" needed for the aggravating circumstance is cold, calculating premeditation which means actually thinking about it and planning.

 

[Just Jayla]

Sorry if this has been asked: Hopefully I can ask this in a way that makes sense...When the jury is deliberating, do they have to utilize the list of aggravating factors and make a determination on each one? If so, what if they believe there are gray areas, but they still believe KC murdered Caylee (due to her behavior, or things she said after the fact, maybe she told someone about the pavers, etc.)?
For example, the jury is not sure if KC used chloroform, but they are also not sure whether the duct tape caused death, or was placed after immediately after death (meaning it is not a tool for abuse, because the victim was already dead).
Can the jury still give the DP without having a clear picture of how the murder aligned perfectly with any one aggravator?

 

[zoey]

In the last hearing AL was talking about the Motion for a Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravated Circumstances and something about a Spencer Hearing. The State responded by telling the Judge that ....the 45 day requirement was waived by defense. What was that in reference to?

http://www.wftv.com/video/23517144/index.html
AL at 29:23
States response at 30:45

I ask because well I don't know lol and because Al does not look too happy about hearing the States response

think this was the hearing like 12-10-08 the day prior to Caylee being found and jb waived the rights for speedy trial---and I guess possibly this?????

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry if this has been asked: Hopefully I can ask this in a way that makes sense...When the jury is deliberating, do they have to utilize the list of aggravating factors and make a determination on each one? If so, what if they believe there are gray areas, but they still believe KC murdered Caylee (due to her behavior, or things she said after the fact, maybe she told someone about the pavers, etc.)?
For example, the jury is not sure if KC used chloroform, but they are also not sure whether the duct tape caused death, or was placed after immediately after death (meaning it is not a tool for abuse, because the victim was already dead).
Can the jury still give the DP without having a clear picture of how the murder aligned perfectly with any one aggravator?

The aggravating factors won't come in until the sentencing phase, so at that point, the jury will not be deciding whether KC murdered Caylee. They will have to take it as a given that KC murdered her. The question will be, IN LIGHT OF THE ESTABLISHED FACT that KC murdered Caylee, should she get the death penalty?

The jury is supposed to consider each aggravator one at a time, yes. However, they could come to the same conclusion regarding the weight of the aggravators being more than the weight of the mitigators even though they are not sure of the facts. E.g., what if they decide that Casey EITHER (1) researched and cooked up some chloroform and used it on Caylee to knock her out, then duct taped her mouth and nose to kill her, OR (2) duct tape Caylee's face in a rage because she could not find a babysitter and threw her in the trunk to die?

So the jury might say, "OK, the aggravators are (1) victim under 12, (2) murderer was mother of victim, (3) aggravated child abuse, and (4) EITHER the murder was cold, calculated and premeditated due to the chloroform research and mixing, OR the murder was cruel, heinous and depraved because Caylee was awake and conscious during the duct taping and suffocation. Either way, we determine that the weight of these aggravators is greater than the weight of Casey's mitigating factors (my mommy is mean, I was sexually abused, I'm a little crazy, etc.)."

 

[Patriciao]

Do you think at this point that Casey's best defense would be to admit she did it but it was an accident? She drowned in the pool, Casey freaked, put the duct tape on to make it look like a kidnapping, and in fear of her mother hid the body in her trunk and then the woods. Would this get her a much lighter sentence and if so what do you think she would get?

 

[logicalgirl]

The aggravating factors won't come in until the sentencing phase, so at that point, the jury will not be deciding whether KC murdered Caylee. They will have to take it as a given that KC murdered her. The question will be, IN LIGHT OF THE ESTABLISHED FACT that KC murdered Caylee, should she get the death penalty?

The jury is supposed to consider each aggravator one at a time, yes. However, they could come to the same conclusion regarding the weight of the aggravators being more than the weight of the mitigators even though they are not sure of the facts. E.g., what if they decide that Casey EITHER (1) researched and cooked up some chloroform and used it on Caylee to knock her out, then duct taped her mouth and nose to kill her, OR (2) duct tape Caylee's face in a rage because she could not find a babysitter and threw her in the trunk to die?

So the jury might say, "OK, the aggravators are (1) victim under 12, (2) murderer was mother of victim, (3) aggravated child abuse, and (4) EITHER the murder was cold, calculated and premeditated due to the chloroform research and mixing, OR the murder was cruel, heinous and depraved because Caylee was awake and conscious during the duct taping and suffocation. Either way, we determine that the weight of these aggravators is greater than the weight of Casey's mitigating factors (my mommy is mean, I was sexually abused, I'm a little crazy, etc.)."

AZLawyer! You are wonderful!!! You have just given me the final piece of the puzzle by saying "the aggravating factors won't come in until the sentencing phase." Bingo! NOW I get it. Adding that to what you've already told me completes what was confusing me.

and thanks also for the answer above:dance:

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think at this point that Casey's best defense would be to admit she did it but it was an accident? She drowned in the pool, Casey freaked, put the duct tape on to make it look like a kidnapping, and in fear of her mother hid the body in her trunk and then the woods. Would this get her a much lighter sentence and if so what do you think she would get?

You mean if she could convince the jury that this was true? Yes, she would get a much lighter sentence; in fact, I'm not sure she's even charged with anything she could get convicted of if those were the facts.

 

[okiedokietoo]

You mean if she could convince the jury that this was true? Yes, she would get a much lighter sentence; in fact, I'm not sure she's even charged with anything she could get convicted of if those were the facts.

Could JB or AL outright present this to the Jury or allude to the "accident" or would KC have to take the stand and state this?

 

[Macushla]

The judge ruled the defense could not use State funds to pay for a Jury Consultant. Can JB go out and hire one and pay for it himself or have someone else pay for it?

 

[logicalgirl]

The judge ruled the defense could not use State funds to pay for a Jury Consultant. Can JB go out and hire one and pay for it himself or have someone else pay for it?

And if he did can I piggyback with Macushia and ask if he did that would it affect ICA indigent status?

 

[Snaz]

Could JB or AL outright present this to the Jury or allude to the "accident" or would KC have to take the stand and state this?

I was wondering about this also. If the defense wants to use any variation of defense OTHER than what KC has stated (the nanny took Caylee), wouldn't KC have to take the stand? Can the defense come up with some other defense without some kind of explanation as to KC's statement... FROM KC?

 

[rhornsby]

I was wondering about this also. If the defense wants to use any variation of defense OTHER than what KC has stated (the nanny took Caylee), wouldn't KC have to take the stand? Can the defense come up with some other defense without some kind of explanation as to KC's statement... FROM KC?

There are two types of defenses in criminal cases; sufficiency of the evidence arguments (which basically means the State has not proven a case or issue beyond a reasonable doubt) and affirmative defenses.

When it comes to sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant can argue anything that is remotely supported by the evidence. So if there is ANY evidence to support the possibility of an accidental death, no matter what witness or piece of evidence it was admitted through, the defense could argue that possibility as a reasonable doubt - this a possible basis for an accident (also, I will not be responding to the million what if scenario comments that will follow).

An affirmative defense is one where the defendant admits the act, but argues there is a legal justification. Examples are Alibi, Insanity, Entrapment, Duress, Etc.

Finally, as for the Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child charge. If Casey's defense were to convince a jury that an accident occurred, a jury would be within their rights to find her guilty of this because her failure to call 911 immediately after the accident would support a conviction. And the maximum penalty for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child is 30 years in prison.

 

[texaslb218]

OT
I believe this is one of the most successful threads I have read on WS over the years.

Once again, thank you AZ for your promptness and consistent attention to our questions.

To Mr. Hornsby, thank you for stepping into our world to teach us.

And a thank you to my colleagues for posting the questions that are astute and relevant.

I really LOVE this thread.

 

[ZsaZsa]

There are two types of defenses in criminal cases; sufficiency of the evidence arguments (which basically means the State has not proven a case or issue beyond a reasonable doubt) and affirmative defenses.

When it comes to sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant can argue anything that is remotely supported by the evidence. So if there is ANY evidence to support the possibility of an accidental death, no matter what witness or piece of evidence it was admitted through, the defense could argue that possibility as a reasonable doubt - this a possible basis for an accident (also, I will not be responding to the million what if scenario comments that will follow).

An affirmative defense is one where the defendant admits the act, but argues there is a legal justification. Examples are Alibi, Insanity, Entrapment, Duress, Etc.

Finally, as for the Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child charge. If Casey's defense were to convince a jury that an accident occurred, a jury would be within their rights to find her guilty of this because her failure to call 911 immediately after the accident would support a conviction. And the maximum penalty for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child is 30 years in prison.

RE Affirmative defense- how can you admit the act but have an alibi?

 

[Paintr]

OT
I believe this is one of the most successful threads I have read on WS over the years.

Once again, thank you AZ for your promptness and consistent attention to our questions.

To Mr. Hornsby, thank you for stepping into our world to teach us.

And a thank you to my colleagues for posting the questions that are astute and relevant.

I really LOVE this thread.

It is a great thread! Let's just hope none of these kind people sends a bill for their services or we will all be broke. LOL! I have learned so much on the lawyer threads. Thank you kindly for sharing your knowledge. :dance: