Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

[ThinkTank]

Excerpt from HO Whos Who list:
George was born in Warren OH and raised in Niles OH
"He worked for his father part-time while attending college and later joined the Trumball County Sheriff Office. He was a Deputy Sheriff in Trumbull County from 1975 – 1984. In the 1980s George Anthony once dabbled in politics – ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic Primary for Trumbull Clerk of Court.
Upon leaving his LE position in 1984, George returned to his father’s car dealership – Anthony’s Auto Sales located on Youngstown-Warren RD for about 3 years. In 1987 he started is own used car dealership – George’s Auto Sales which failed in 1989. When the business failed George and Cindy lost their home which was leveraged against the business. They filed bankruptcy and later moved to FL in September 1989."

 

[Kathy1964]

BBM

It was? I am totally confused then. I thought that was one of the reasons they decided to move to FL (along with being closer to CA's parents). I know when they separated GA went to south FL to stay with someone....I guess I just assumed it was his parents...

Georges parents live in Ft Meyers (I think Ft Meyers is right) They have been mentioned several times by Cindy

 

[countzero]

This is how I am interpreting the search: The Anthony's lived in Ohio until ICA was 2-3 years old. Shirley and her husband, by CA's testimony, were the people who watched both ICA and Lee while both CA/GA worked there and in Florida.

In my family dynamics, my parents or the people who watched my children at that age on a daily or consistent basis would be the ones who had the most intimate knowledge of me and my children. Not relatives who we saw on a yearly or semi-yearly basis due to distance. Especially those who have issues of their own (which is why there is only a yearly visit, lol).

Even GA's parents and sister live in Fla. What they (JBarrett and snake in the grass Lyons) are attempting to do is the same as JB/CM are doing with TES: they are going hunting during off season without a license. Hoping they snag something, anything to "assist" in their defense theories.

While there in Florida live all the people they need to contact who possess that knowledge. It's apparent the info they acquired from the local extended family, especially Rick even though he is in SC, wasn't helping their cause. Actually, he did the right thing and stepped up for Caylee and pizzed off CA. Shirley did the same.

And HHJP knows it as does Linda, Jeff and George. And now JB knows it as of yesterday.

 

[countzero]

In the discovery with all the letters that people wrote to Inmate Anthony, there are several letters from her "Aunt Kathy" in Ohio. She is George's sister. There is Kathy, her husband, her daughter, her son in Ohio now. Kathy's husband is in the auto dealership business. Maybe George's sister can testify to George's anger issues with his father? Maybe it is the family dynamics of ANGER that Inmate Anthony was raised with by Daddy George, they are looking for to provide a mitigating factor not to give the Inmate the death penalty.

George's sister, Ruth, and her husband are also in Ohio, or were in Ohio ... may now be in SC.

And how much ya wanna bet that these relatives were "encouraged" to write to ICA???? iirc, in CA's depo or one of her many interviews she stated they didn't have much contact with these people in Ohio. I could be wrong but I remember thinking at that time, it wasn't/isn't strange for CA to cut one from her life if she felt she was wronged by them. CA has a history of doing just that.

 

[denjet]

I'm trying to figure out exactly who Ann Finnell is wanting to interview in Ohio.:waitasec: Isn't that where GA & CA met and married? GA worked as a LEO there. I know CA's parents live in Mt. Dora now. I recall that they (CA, GA, LA and KC) moved to Florida so GA could work with his dad at the car dealership. So, to the best of my recollection, both of their families were in Florida???

I'm missing a piece of the puzzle somewhere....

I may be way off, but, I think Finnell wants to delve into family dynamics ... interaction with the rest of their family, employers, the rest of the community etc. ... maybe even George's violent temper, George's financial irresponsibility and causing the A's to lose their home ... what his record was when working for the sheriff's office ... IMO it's to find fault with the parents and digging up their pasts ...

 

[mysteriew]

I may be way off, but, I think Finnell wants to delve into family dynamics ... interaction with the rest of their family, employers, the rest of the community etc. ... maybe even George's violent temper, George's financial irresponsibility and causing the A's to lose their home ... what his record was when working for the sheriff's office ... IMO it's to find fault with the parents and digging up their pasts ...

I agree. But I wonder if there is more. Wasn't there something about a fight between GA and his Dad? Am I remembering that correctly? Police maybe being called? And I wonder if there are any police reports about DV? Wouldn't have to be convictions, even a report would do.

One point on Ohio records. Getting copies of convictions is easy, they are a matter of public record. But getting a copy of a LE report that didn't go to court is really difficult. Almost impossible without a court order. Of course if a party to the report requests a copy they can usually get it.

 

[Itsy]

Hmmm, don't suppose she might want to chat with George's friend/buddy/pal Jim? (can't recall his last name at the moment) What with Jim being LE and most assuredly George's confidant during the Ohio years, I'd think he'd have some tales to tell and would feel compelled to tell the truth. Just a thought I hadn't noticed anyone else raise... (if so, sorry I overlooked it!)

But, come to think of it - if George's sister has a mental issue, that would probably be more in line with what Ms. Finnell is looking for.

 

[affinity]

I am betting Finnell, if it comes to a penalty phase (and who is everybody kidding..it seems almost 100% sure) would want to establish that tiny baby Casey did not bond with anyone as a teensey tiny person. This would be big...(if they can educate the jurors). It is big because it would show everyone why Casey HAS NO FEELINGS. They have shown how even primates need affection/attention when they are newborn. If they do not receive it they are supremely screwed up.
It is so interesting that they talked about how Finnell wants to talk with people who might know that Casey was born to parents who neglected her and perhaps (who knows!) even wished she hadn't been born blah blah. In my own case (and remember, I "relate" to Casey, despite having killed no one) I am told that my Mother used to leave me outside without a chaperone when I was really small. My Mother was a lot like Cindy. I did not kill anyone..but I have had strong narcissistic tendencies...this is likely the result of feeling unloved and even despised by someone who was charged with being my caregiver. There are reasons Casey is Casey. It would be so interesting to find out about her earliest existence.

 

[nums24]

How can it be JBarrett has only submitted has only submitted 20.8 hours of billing? Does her work depend on whether or not find a SODDI from the TES records? Wouldn't JBarrett be responsible for listing potential penalty phase witnesses?

 

[kaRN]

It's a perfectly acceptable legal strategy to offer inconsistent argument, but you do run the real risk of the jury wondering exactly where the attorney so arguing is not being candid.

The way I learned it is via an example I'll try to remember as well as I can. This was told to me by a very successful (and at the time very drunk) litigator for a top law firm (Latham & Watkins).

Charge: Your pigs ate my cabbages.

Defense argument:

• There were no cabbages.
• If it can be shown there were cabbages, they were not your cabbages.
• If it can be shown they were your cabbages, they were not eaten.
• If it can be shown they were eaten, they were not eaten by pigs.
• If it can be shown they were eaten by pigs, they were not eaten by my client's pigs.
• If if can be shown they were eaten by my client's pigs, my client's pigs were insane.

how do you think the jury will respond when MC leaves the Guilt / Innocence phase and AF resumes his place at the table for sentencing?

 

[sleutherontheside]

During the penalty phase of her DP trial KC would not have to admit guilt. The presentation of "mitigating factors" gives the jury a glimpse of what "could have" led to her committing a crime. It is not an admission of guilt.

Mitigation would have nothing to do with the SODDI theory because if they are presenting mitigating factors she has already been found guilty.

There is concern being voiced about preparing for mitigation before trial. The State requires that her defense be fully prepared for the penalty phase BEFORE trial. If they were to fail to properly prepare, THAT would be grounds for an appeal.

Any number of factors can be used during mitigation. At that point in the trial it becomes a matter of life and death not guilt or innocence.

While some people find arguing birth trauma or a difficult pregnancy during mitigation to be a cop out or a scam....you have to remember that the defense is no longer trying to deny guilt but instead create an opportunity for someone to think "What if something did go wrong during delivery, childhood, or with their mental health?"

The mitigation efforts are made in order to allow jurors to justify punishing with a sentence "less than death".

Mitigation is a crucial aspect to any death penalty case. While we may be repulsed by the crime itself, we are required to remain cognizant that the defendant is still a person and that life has value. Mitigation forces the jurors to weigh that life value against the crime.

 

[ZsaZsa]

During the penalty phase of her DP trial KC would not have to admit guilt. The presentation of "mitigating factors" gives the jury a glimpse of what "could have" led to her committing a crime. It is not an admission of guilt.

Mitigation would have nothing to do with the SODDI theory because if they are presenting mitigating factors she has already been found guilty.

There is concern being voiced about preparing for mitigation before trial. The State requires that her defense be fully prepared for the penalty phase BEFORE trial. If they were to fail to properly prepare, THAT would be grounds for an appeal.

Any number of factors can be used during mitigation. At that point in the trial it becomes a matter of life and death not guilt or innocence.

While some people find arguing birth trauma or a difficult pregnancy during mitigation to be a cop out or a scam....you have to remember that the defense is no longer trying to deny guilt but instead create an opportunity for someone to think "What if something did go wrong during delivery, childhood, or with their mental health?"

The mitigation efforts are made in order to allow jurors to justify punishing with a sentence "less than death".

Mitigation is a crucial aspect to any death penalty case. While we may be repulsed by the crime itself, we are required to remain cognizant that the defendant is still a person and that life has value. Mitigation forces the jurors to weigh that life value against the crime.

I am repulsed by the crime and the person that committed it. Once found guilty of this heinous crime she will hopefully be sentenced to the same fate she inflicted on Caylee, only her death will be much more humanely done. To paraphrase HHJP - he said to one criminal sentenced to death 'You have not only forfeited your right to live among us as a free man,you have forfeited your right to live at all'.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I am repulsed by the crime and the person that committed it. Once found guilty of this heinous crime she will hopefully be sentenced to the same fate she inflicted on Caylee, only her death will be much more humanely done. To paraphrase HHJP - he said to one criminal sentenced to death 'You have not only forfeited your right to live among us as a free man,you have forfeited your right to live at all'.

Just to be clear...I am not trying to justify KC's actions (once found guilty). I am just describing the mitigation process itself.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Oh I know...

JMO_ Here comes another Defense Attorney with Mitigation on her mind, bent on traipsing all over the country to dig up any possible trace of dirt in CA or GA's life, so she can think up some excuses as to why they are the root cause for KC killing her child. I wonder exactly how many hours any of these people have devoted to finding out what happened to this defenseless little child whose life also had tremendous potential and value. None of them seem to have even thought of it, they certainly don't mention her.

 

[nums24]

During the penalty phase of her DP trial KC would not have to admit guilt. The presentation of "mitigating factors" gives the jury a glimpse of what "could have" led to her committing a crime. It is not an admission of guilt.

Mitigation would have nothing to do with the SODDI theory because if they are presenting mitigating factors she has already been found guilty.

There is concern being voiced about preparing for mitigation before trial. The State requires that her defense be fully prepared for the penalty phase BEFORE trial. If they were to fail to properly prepare, THAT would be grounds for an appeal.

Any number of factors can be used during mitigation. At that point in the trial it becomes a matter of life and death not guilt or innocence.

While some people find arguing birth trauma or a difficult pregnancy during mitigation to be a cop out or a scam....you have to remember that the defense is no longer trying to deny guilt but instead create an opportunity for someone to think "What if something did go wrong during delivery, childhood, or with their mental health?"

The mitigation efforts are made in order to allow jurors to justify punishing with a sentence "less than death".

Mitigation is a crucial aspect to any death penalty case. While we may be repulsed by the crime itself, we are required to remain cognizant that the defendant is still a person and that life has value. Mitigation forces the jurors to weigh that life value against the crime.

Thank you for your excellent explanation!

Isn't it rather remarkable, if not irresponsible that at this point Jbarret has only submitted 20.8 hours since the March IFC hearing?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thank you for your excellent explanation!

Isn't it rather remarkable, if not irresponsible that at this point Jbarret has only submitted 20.8 hours since the March IFC hearing?

Well perhaps that 20.8 hours covered only her time with KC. Any mitigation investigation done by Mort Smith would have been billed apart from her hours.

I suspect that the arrival of this new mitigation attorney may inadvertantly open up a can of worms for JB and his billing practices to date.

My impression of the hearing the other day was that he had "robbed Peter to pay Paul" with respect to his allowable investigator budget. I don't know that to be truth, just a feeling I got.

But, Ann Finnell likely nipped that in the bud when she forced JB to claify that there were in fact hours left in the mitigation budget.

Judge Perry was very precise in his questioning about budget expenses, even going so far as to parrot back statements proffered by JB in previous hearings.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is the reason for the 20.8 hr billing from Ms Barrett to do with the fact she is out of state and not an authorized vendor to JAC? Wouldn't she first have to get a Fla license or professional credentials to work/bill in Fla?

 

[nums24]

Well perhaps that 20.8 hours covered only her time with KC. Any mitigation investigation done by Mort Smith would have been billed apart from her hours.

I suspect that the arrival of this new mitigation attorney may inadvertantly open up a can of worms for JB and his billing practices to date.

My impression of the hearing the other day was that he had "robbed Peter to pay Paul" with respect to his allowable investigator budget. I don't know that to be truth, just a feeling I got.

But, Ann Finnell likely nipped that in the bud when she forced JB to claify that there were in fact hours left in the mitigation budget.

Judge Perry was very precise in his questioning about budget expenses, even going so far as to parrot back statements proffered by JB in previous hearings.

I was very pleased that Judge Perry finally called out the defense and held them accountable. IMO, it's been a long time coming.

Regarding Mort Smith, in order to be paid by the JAC, the invesitgator and mitigation specialist must be licensed in Florida, neither he or J. Barrett are licensed in FL yet.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM

It was? I am totally confused then. I thought that was one of the reasons they decided to move to FL (along with being closer to CA's parents). I know when they separated GA went to south FL to stay with someone....I guess I just assumed it was his parents...

When GA's dad retired he then moved down to Ft Myers. GA opened his own dealership which went bust. Then they moved down to Fla.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Presenting family dynamics, history of abuse, diagnosed mental health issues, trauma, injuries, illnesses, etc......all play an important role in the mitigation portion of the penalty phase.

Going back through my notes I re-read emails between Cindy and her brother.
Here is an example of how family history could factor into mitigation.

Email from Cindy to Rick
August 22 2008 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: Won’t do Greta.
call his father he did not wrestle his dad thru a glass window. She did not steal dad’s check I gave mom back the check from her 21st birthday uncashed that is how she got the routing number. You are the f/n stupid one, there is a sitter. We have people tracking her, the OCSO is not doing there job, but we have other sources who are. Someday you will eat all your words and I hope you choke on them. There is no case against Casey, DNA does not take 31 days to get back they have nothing. I did not ask you to get involved. You think you know everything. Mom got confused when you went thru your divorce and took Pam’s side until I convinced her there are always 2 sides. People should not judge what they do not know. The next time you say Caylee is dead I will personally come there and kick your sorry @ss all the way to hell, because that is where you are headed. Stay out of my life. You did not ruin your son’s life, he is a wonderful young man. Thank god you disowned him he did better of without you. You have no family loyalty, or faith, what a waste of a human existence. I did not want to stoop to our low life level but I’m calling it as I see it. Again I feel sorry for Robin, she is a nice woman. I have only 2 brothers.


Email from Rick To Cindy:
August 23 2008 1:01 pm
Subject: No subject
Mom has the statement that Casey STOLE from dad’s account. You @ss! Mom told you about Casey STEALING IT! QUIT LYING FOR CASEY!! Casey’s excuses for stealing was that Universal transferred her and they didn’t have the budget for the phones that the employees needed and told them to buy them themselves Casey told mom that the Universal would reimburse them,. Casey didn’t have the money to buy it so she “borrowed” it from dad’s account. The check was signed “Casey Anthony”! So don’t f/n lie to me. I have hears enough lies coming for you daughter for a lifetime and now your are lying to me. Your princess daughter didn’t even graduate from high school and you cover that up. When you FINALLY find “the truth” about what has happened to Caylee, I will say I TOLD YOU SO! You are so damn blind you need a seeing eye dog. If you REALLY wanted to find Caylee you would seek the real truth from Casey.
The FBI and the forensic labs are taking their time and doing this right. That evidence is NOT in yet. You are in for a huge surprise.
Speaking of the FBI, they and the Orange County Sheriff’s office called me and mom. They now know what mom and I know about this. They talked to Dan too. This is far to serious to PRETENT that Casey just gave Caylee to a “made up” sitter. No one believes you or your lying daughter. I disowned Nate because he was a lying no-good little prick. I gave him many chances. (but not the million chances you have given Casey) No one was ever “missing” from my house. I welcome the chance of you coming hereto “kick my @ss”. You need to kick Casey’s @ss you idiot. I know you want to believe Caylee is still alive because you will have lost Caylee and Casey. I was trying to let you SEE BOTH SIDES! You are the only looking at Casey’s side.
I don’t need you in my family. You are too stupid to be in my family. You are the stupidest people that I know. You can pick your seat and pick your nose, you can’t pick your relatives! All you had to do was discipline Casey. You didn’t do anything to squelch her. You created her now deal with her.
If you think Nate is a fine man I would have a problem with that. Your judge of characters is not working. You can’t see Casey did something to Caylee and KNOWS what it is. Nate may have grown up and if he got away from Pam’s influence he may have a chance. He knows now that I wasn’t going to put up with is nonsense any longer. Something that you have to learn about Casey!Anyway the police and FBI now know the truth. I hope it will lead them to Caylee.
What you were doing wasn’t working.



From that exchange alone....a mitigation expert could argue that KC was never given boundaries and that appearances were a priority for the Anthony family.

According to Rick, Cindy made a practice of covering for KC to the point of alienating her own family.

I am not saying that Cindy is at fault, but when you read an email like that.....and that is not even the only thing that could be presented, you can see how it could lead a jury to think that KC was pretty screwed up.

Again...this is not a justification for no death penalty. THis is an example of how mitigation can be used.




http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76862&highlight=emails+cindy+rick