Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

[logicalgirl]

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.

Didn't Baez say one-third to one-half had been used up to date?:waitasec:
That doesn't sound like 20.8 hours?

 

[logicalgirl]

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

Fantastic explanation! Respectfully, and I mean that Sleutherontheside - you know how I adore both your mind and dead on analysis - I understand the process of the mitigation phase.

I've been doing a lot of case reading re mitigation presented and how much consideration has been given. To take your information a step further, I think this information will mean squat to the juror during the mitigation phase. ICA stayed in school for twelve years, and she had a job for a short period of time. She had a drivers license. She understands boundaries IMO.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Fantastic explanation! Respectfully, and I mean that Sleutherontheside - you know how I adore both your mind and dead on analysis - I understand the process of the mitigation phase.

I've been doing a lot of case reading re mitigation presented and how much consideration has been given. To take your information a step further, I think this information will mean squat to the juror during the mitigation phase. ICA stayed in school for twelve years, and she had a job for a short period of time. She had a drivers license. She understands boundaries IMO.

Thank you for the compliment. She may well understand boundaries but IMO they may be subjective to her. Kind of like the kid that is an angel in class and a holy terror at home.

Mitigation is the last stop on the route before the destination. Kind of like a rest stop before the long bridge...gas up, get your snacks, stretch your legs, and go potty now cause it's your last chance.

I think KC's defense has been working on mitigation far longer and more diligently than the guilt / innocence phase. They know what they are up against. I look at her refusal to see family, the allegations of abuse, and the letters to her jail pals as posibly being a part of that mitigation effort.

I respect your thoughts on the process and do see your point. I never knew the mitigation process was so involved.

Additionally, a good mitigation specialist will also try to encourage a plea if the right situation. After all, to them it's only about saving her life.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, definitely agree with all your strong points and i also had no idea of the depth of the mitigation process until this case. We started talking about mitigation a good year ago, and I carried on researching because I kept hearing the mitigation process is as important or more important than the guilt phase.

But I also have reading about young people in their 20's who have come from truly horrendous backgrounds and childhoods. They have suffered from having addicted/alcoholic parents, beatings regularly, frequent abandonment, foster homes, dropped out of school early, etc., - you name it - these defendants have experienced it. I have yet to find a case where it made a difference - the mitigating factors are acknowledged, but the jurors go on to recommend a penalty as if there wasn't even a mitigation phase.

But I will continue my reading in search of one where a middle class young white female, who has had more than her share of life's advantages, has been charged with a parallel crime, and mitigation actually has made a difference. If you find one - please send me in it's direction!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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

I don't disagree entirely - but those emails are pretty weak imo. They're just two people arguing, I couldn't see that exchange rightfully having any sway over whether she gets the DP but I wouldn't be surprised if they use it. I suspect the Ohio excursion will be to give more drama and "life" to these arguments and accusations.

 

[sleutherontheside]

No specific case cited but interesting reading.


http://www.albany.edu/scj/documents/Brewer_2004_LHB.pdf

Experimental research into the effects of race on capital juror decision-making has also yielded significant findings. Lynch and Haney (2000) studied the relationship between race and the evaluation of evidence at sentencing in capital trials. They found that the defendant's race influenced the respondents' use of certain categories of mitigation. Arguments relating to the defendant's history of child abuse psychiatric problems, and history of substance abuse were viewed as less mitigating in cases where the defendant was Black compared to those in which he was White (Lynch & Haney, 2000, p. 352). Race of defendant also affected the manner in which the mitigation was used. Respondents who viewed the Black-defendant trial vignettes were more likely to view mitigation as aggravating than in White defendant cases.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Didn't Baez say one-third to one-half had been used up to date?:waitasec:
That doesn't sound like 20.8 hours?

She just hasn't been paid for her billed hours yet....?

 

[nums24]

Didn't Baez say one-third to one-half had been used up to date?:waitasec:
That doesn't sound like 20.8 hours?

Actually LG, it was AF that said 1/3 to 1/5 of the hours have been used.

 

[nums24]

She just hasn't been paid for her billed hours yet....?

She has not received payment from JAC.

 

[logicalgirl]

No specific case cited but interesting reading.


http://www.albany.edu/scj/documents/Brewer_2004_LHB.pdf

Experimental research into the effects of race on capital juror decision-making has also yielded significant findings. Lynch and Haney (2000) studied the relationship between race and the evaluation of evidence at sentencing in capital trials. They found that the defendant's race influenced the respondents' use of certain categories of mitigation. Arguments relating to the defendant's history of child abuse psychiatric problems, and history of substance abuse were viewed as less mitigating in cases where the defendant was Black compared to those in which he was White (Lynch & Haney, 2000, p. 352). Race of defendant also affected the manner in which the mitigation was used. Respondents who viewed the Black-defendant trial vignettes were more likely to view mitigation as aggravating than in White defendant cases.

Interesting article - thanks - I think I suspected this, but have never seen it laid out in a document before this.

I did pick this out and wondered if it might boomerang for ICA.....

"The first such level is the degree to which the
jury can personally identify with the defendant. They argue that if jurors can find any
similarity between themselves and the defendant those jurors will be more receptive
to situational attributions regarding the criminal act as opposed to dispositional
attributions. This proposition makes intuitive sense. We are less likely to see someone
who we identify with as inherently evil."

And absolutely agree with this:

"The differential appraisal
of mitigating life events could have very real implications for fostering empathy in
jurors, the majority of whom cannot directly relate to the life experiences of typi-
cal capital defendants. Middle-class, White juries who may have the best intentions,
may be simply incapable of understanding the mitigating nature of extreme poverty;
emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse; drug addiction; exposure to violence; and
the litany of other experiences that are facts of life to many members of the lowest
socioeconomic strata."

Thank you again Sleutherontheside - well worth taking the time to read, fellow posters.

 

[kaRN]

Yes, definitely agree with all your strong points and i also had no idea of the depth of the mitigation process until this case. We started talking about mitigation a good year ago, and I carried on researching because I kept hearing the mitigation process is as important or more important than the guilt phase.

But I also have reading about young people in their 20's who have come from truly horrendous backgrounds and childhoods. They have suffered from having addicted/alcoholic parents, beatings regularly, frequent abandonment, foster homes, dropped out of school early, etc., - you name it - these defendants have experienced it. I have yet to find a case where it made a difference - the mitigating factors are acknowledged, but the jurors go on to recommend a penalty as if there wasn't even a mitigation phase.

But I will continue my reading in search of one where a middle class young white female, who has had more than her share of life's advantages, has been charged with a parallel crime, and mitigation actually has made a difference. If you find one - please send me in it's direction!

Mitigation in the Scott Peterson case was hilarious and had no effect whatsoever on the jury. For days they went on about what a shiny happy baby he was and how he played golf as a teenager.
Casey was completely indulged her whole life. She had supports and choices in place to make different choices and yet still choose to snuff out Caylee. Mitigation didn't even work for Andrea Yates in her first trial. Well it did if LWOP is a victory over the DP in a profoundly mentally ill person.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Am I the only one who thinks this whole mitigation phase is a farce?
I don't really care what made her the way she is, she is an adult with free will and access to the most sophisticated medical care in the world if she was having problems that were too burdensome for her. She chose her path in life and I do not understand why so many people want to reduce her punishment once it is imposed..

 

[Snaz]

Am I the only one who thinks this whole mitigation phase is a farce?
I don't really care what made her the way she is, she is an adult with free will and access to the most sophisticated medical care in the world if she was having problems that were too burdensome for her. She chose her path in life and I do not understand why so many people want to reduce her punishment once it is imposed..

No, Zsa Zsa, you are NOT the only one. It actually makes me mad to listen to witnesses in the mitigation phase talk about how wonderful a convicted murderer "was when blah, blah, blah"..... What matters to me is the choice she made when she CHOSE to murder an innocent two year old little girl who's only mistake was to be born into THAT family.

I don't care if she hated her mother because she was controlling. I don't care if she would rather party than be a mother herself. I don't care if she wasn't close to her father for whatever reason. I don't care if Aunt So and So is bipolar. I don't care one whit about anything in KC's life except the choice SHE, and she alone, made to snuff out the life of her daughter. Honestly, I don't even care WHY she did it. The fact remains... she did it. There is nothing from her past - nothing that happened - that could EVER make that okay!

:twocents:

 

[kaRN]

Am I the only one who thinks this whole mitigation phase is a farce?
I don't really care what made her the way she is, she is an adult with free will and access to the most sophisticated medical care in the world if she was having problems that were too burdensome for her. She chose her path in life and I do not understand why so many people want to reduce her punishment once it is imposed..

No I'm totally on board in this case. ICA has no excuse from what I can see and we've seen everything released so far. Andrea Yates is a client mitigation was important for. But if AY gets mitigation so must ICA.

 

[costalpilot]

............
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

Pretty screwed up........well, that has been established already, beyond doubt. if criminals got more lenient sentences because they were pretty screwed up, our society would be in trouble...oh yeah----it is.

 

[Gma Kat]

Mitigation in the Scott Peterson case was hilarious and had no effect whatsoever on the jury. For days they went on about what a shiny happy baby he was and how he played golf as a teenager.
Casey was completely indulged her whole life. She had supports and choices in place to make different choices and yet still choose to snuff out Caylee. Mitigation didn't even work for Andrea Yates in her first trial. Well it did if LWOP is a victory over the DP in a profoundly mentally ill person.

ITA with you re the above cases. I watched the documentary about Eileen Wornous (sp?) from the movie "Monster"....if I had been one of her jurors I would never have been able to vote for the DP because I felt compassion for her for the horrific childhood she endured. But even EW's jury gave her the DP - so my goodness, I really don't know what it would take to save ICA.

 

[logicalgirl]

No, Zsa Zsa, you are NOT the only one. It actually makes me mad to listen to witnesses in the mitigation phase talk about how wonderful a convicted murderer "was when blah, blah, blah"..... What matters to me is the choice she made when she CHOSE to murder an innocent two year old little girl who's only mistake was to be born into THAT family.

I don't care if she hated her mother because she was controlling. I don't care if she would rather party than be a mother herself. I don't care if she wasn't close to her father for whatever reason. I don't care if Aunt So and So is bipolar. I don't care one whit about anything in KC's life except the choice SHE, and she alone, made to snuff out the life of her daughter. Honestly, I don't even care WHY she did it. The fact remains... she did it. There is nothing from her past - nothing that happened - that could EVER make that okay!




:twocents:

:bow::bow::bow:

Snaz - have you been snooping in my brain? LOL!

 

[kaRN]

ITA with you re the above cases. I watched the documentary about Eileen Wornous (sp?) from the movie "Monster"....if I had been one of her jurors I would never have been able to vote for the DP because I felt compassion for her for the horrific childhood she endured. But even EW's jury gave her the DP - so my goodness, I really don't know what it would take to save ICA.

I think we'd make great jurors Gma Kat!
I`ve really tried to look at the mitigating factors throughout this case ever since it became clear within a shadow of doubt in my mind, that ICA was guilty. I`ve tried to understand CA and wear her shoes. Tried to empathize with what Lee must feel like, or GA, or SP or Rick. I`ve been there and done that and am left cold inside.

EW and A wore their mitigating factors. It was etched on their faces for the world to see. It didn`t need to be tracked down to Ohio or some truck stop.
I believe if ICA gets LWOP as opposed to the DP it will be because the jjury wants her punishment to last a longer lifetime.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Guys I know this question has been answered before but I cannot find it.

If the jury comes back with a recommendation for LWOP can the judge still give Casey the DP, or vice versa? Or can he do so, but it is extremely rare and he would likely go with what the jury says regardless.

Having a little Q & A here at home and not sure of this one

 

[Solace]

When Ann Finnell was up this morning, DID SHE SAY 'SEXUAL ABUSE". I cannot get a straight answer from anyone at all at wftv. Can anymore here help me. Or did she simply say Abused. please