If she gets convicted of 2nd degree murder of even manslaughter, what would be min or max sentence for each one/
Because it is manslaughter of a child, the max sentence in both cases would be 30 years. The minimum would depend upon a complex "point system" used in Florida. IIRC Casey's felony convictions would increase her number of points and therefore her minimum sentence.
Do you know if the SA, DT & ICA might have agreed and maybe had some stipulations agreeing to this process for jury selection?? Can they do that, which would prevent any appeals for selection being done this way? How can you strike when you may be on the fence with a juror? THanks
They could have. I too am concerned about forcing strikes before the entire panel is available for review--what if you use 8 strikes on the first group of 12, but then the next group is so much worse?
This mitigating factor stuff that has come up... can the DT use any info KC gives them about her alleged mistreatment from her parents without verifying it to be true? What if this abuse is something totally made up by KC?
TIA
As long as they have evidence to present in the penalty phase (like Casey's testimony), they don't have to have independent confirmation that the evidence is true. It's up to the SA to challenge the evidence, and up to the jury to decide whether to believe it or not.
With sincerest respect, I strongly disagree.
Arranging for the jurors to smell for themselves is essentially arranging for the jurors to conduct an experiment. IMO it would be like having the jury experimenting with a gun to try to get it to misfire when dropped, in a case where the defendant claimed the gun had accidentally misfired when he dropped it. It would be OK for a gun expert to examine/test/experiment with the gun and provide expert testimony concerning whether the gun could have or could not have misfired when dropped but it would NOT be OK for the jury to conduct their own experiments on this same issue.
In a brief search of legal authorities, I did not find any appellate decisions where the jurors were permitted to smell a preserved smell. All of the "smell evidence" decisions I found involved witnesses who testified about having smelled alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, decomp, etc.
Although I do not disagree that human decomp is an extremely unique smell, I don't think the prosecution will be able to prove that NOTHING ELSE smells similar, particularly given the likelihood they will be presenting evidence to the contrary with regard to the pseudo-decomp scents used for training cadaver dogs. IIRC decomposing pigs are supposed to smell similar to decomposing human remains. If Casey had actually worked as an event planner, the defense might be able to put together some story about transporting a suckling pig to a luau or BBQ in her car trunk but the container breached and pork juices leaked out onto the car's carpet etc.
IMO this is one of those "lack of foundation" situations where certain "foundational" facts must be proven before the evidence can become admissible.
Katprint
Always only my own opinions
That's a reasonable argument. Myself, I can't see the distinction between allowing the jurors to use their sense of sight or hearing and allowing the jurors to use their sense of smell.
After watching or listening to a couple of days of void dire, it sounds like poor KC may have suffered at the hands of her parents. If the DT goes down this path would the prosecution have to press charges against GA or LA or CA ? One would think you can not just throw these allegations around lightly. If there was a crime shouldn't it be thoroughly investigated?
No, they would not have to prosecute anyone, especially if the only evidence is the word of a known liar--and yes, in court, especially in defense of a criminal case, you can throw these kind of allegations around without consequence.
It also violates the confrontration clause. If I were the SA I would simply introduce it into evidence when Dr. Vass is testifying re laying a foundation for his testimony. Have him open it and smell it and say this is the odor he smelled and it's the smell of decomp.--the smell should then permeate the air and the jurors can smell it.
I don't quite see the confrontation clause issue, but great idea to have him open the can on the stand.
Maybe he can kind of waft his hand toward the jury, too lol.
What is the role of Rosalie Bolin, the death penalty mitigator in regards to Casey? Is she supposed to be explaining circumstances of the death penalty with Casey? I noticed that Rosalie Bolin does not ask the potential jurors any questions? Why is this? Is Rosalie Bolin an attorney as well as a death penalty mitigator? I read that Ann Finnell is a death qualified attorney? What is the difference between a death penalty mitigator and a death qualified attorney?
She is not a lawyer AFAIK. Mitigation specialists generally have a social work background, sometimes also a background in psychology, and some are paralegals. They are not lawyers.
Only the lawyers can ask questions during voir dire.
I doubt she's there to explain the death penalty to Casey. The lawyers should have no problem doing that. She might be there to assess the potential jurors for their responses to things that will come up in mitigation.
I understand that there will be 12 jurors and 8 alternates for this case. How is it determined which are on the 12 panel and which are on the 8 alternate panel?
Thanks.
The first 12 picked are the jurors; the next 8 are the alternates (unless HHJP chooses to assign alternates by random drawing of names).
Forgive, I have not read this thread in a long time, but have a question ie this possible lawsuit against BC? Would filing this prevent CA and/or GA from testifying in this on-going case? Another question, would not the same type of action possibly be filed against MN as well? ie Breaking Attorney/Client priv. tia.
GA and CA filing a lawsuit against BC would have no effect whatsoever on their ability to testify at the trial. Also, I thought they were talking about filing a bar complaint, not a lawsuit.
What did MN do to breach attorney/client privilege?
So if the DT says KC had a horrible childhood, are they then saying she did what she is being accused of doing but it's not her fault? Do they believe she is guilty and so they are just trying to save her life ?
No, they are saying she is innocent. But even if she did it, which we're not admitting, she shouldn't be put to death. It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it is very normal in the law but seems very sneaky to non-lawyers.
I recently handled a malpractice case against another attorney (I know--bad karma) and his defenses were: 1. That guy wasn't even my client; 2. Even if he was my client, I never gave him any advice; 3. Even if I did give him advice, the advice was correct; 4. Even if my advice was wrong, he would never have followed my advice if I'd given him the right advice; and 5. Even if I had given him the right advice and he had followed it, he would have lost everything anyway, so no harm no foul.
Perfectly acceptable way to defend the case under the law, but the jury was appalled.
I hope that one of you will be able to answer my question.
In a juror questionaire or when all juror's were gathered why weren't they asked about hardship's and ICA guilt or innocense right in the beginning to have avoided the lenght of this jury selection? It just seems to me it would have been much easier. Thank you in advance.
I don't know why those questions weren't asked, but I don't think it would have saved much time. You have to ask a bunch of follow-up questions to find out if the person REALLY REALLY has a hardship or has prejudged the case.
It appears HHJP is much harder on JA than anyone on the DT. Any thoughts why?
HHJP allows JB and CM a lot of leeway and seems to shut down JA quickly and rather rudely at times.
I don't watch the hearings live, so I'll have to assume this is true. It's possible that he gives the defense more leeway because they are the ones defending someone with constitutional rights and her life on the line. He is not supposed to protect the rights of the SA to the same extent that he is supposed to protect the rights of Casey.
made a decision that the "real" reason couldn't have been the real reason because the State wasn't striking EVERYONE who answered in a similar fashion.
I am very worried now.
