Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

[countzero]

Lines 1, 2, and 3 - just stop! Y'hear? I'm dying for one and can't find one in Canada yet...

Is that what he was actually using? Must have some of Casey's cash stashed somewhere - weren't those just released in the last month or so?

Yes, the wifi version was released a month ago, the 3G 4.30. I thought about this last night and the iPad isn't a full notebook capability. It does have limitations. Unless JB was just taking notes, using the note app, I personally can't understand why he was using one. Because of it's size, it is great for surfing the web, getting and sending emails (like to CA, maybe) and viewing video and photos. Think about this, the iPad is just an extension of the iPhone, only bigger. IMHO, JB was "grandstanding" his new toy to the media.

Hold on for a couple of more weeks, the international units will be for sale.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

(5) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:

1(a) The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.

(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

(c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(e) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(f) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(g) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(j) The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.

(k) The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim's official capacity.

(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

(n) The capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member, as defined in s. 874.03.

(o) The capital felony was committed by a person designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21 or a person previously designated as a sexual predator who had the sexual predator designation removed.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.HTM



Those I bolded above are what I feel are the aggravating circumstances as to why a DP case was imperative for Inmate Anthony. While the SAO only needs to list one for it to stick...I can't wait to see the discovery document JA has to give the defendant to justify the DP charge..I also hope this gives Inmate Anthony an incentive to come clean and do away with a trial. She may want to take this time to think it over. She and only she can save herself from death and be happy with a LWOP sentence. At least she gets to breathe, Caylee doesn't have that choice...JMHO

Yes, death is different, too bad Caylee can't answer how different it is...:furious:


Justice for Caylee

 

[suepitzl]

I totally agree!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

:clap: Thank-you for providing this synopsis. I read this book more than 20 years ago, in college, IN FRENCH, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Actually it is fitting that the character is a sociopath without empathy, just like Casey, just strange that AL would reference it...

The book is written in French. It has been translated into English. Of course, I read an English version.

It's interesting to me that AL used this book as an example though because she is trying to overthrow the DP. The accused in the book was
publically put to death (head chopped off) despite his antisocial behaviors. He does not deny that he killed the victim.
He shot him three more times, after the first bullet, because he said, 'what difference did it make?'

When you read the book in the original French version, are these the same circumstances you remember reading?

Regarding AL tying the book to KC's case, I get the part about judging someone based on behavior that does not seem normal
(and wouldn't necessarily prove they are responsible for the crime), but the character in the book IS guilty! :crazy:
Maybe this post belongs on the Irony thread!

 

[LinasK]

The book is written in French. It has been translated into English. Of course, I read an English version.

It's interesting to me that AL used this book as an example though because she is trying to overthrow the DP. The accused in the book was
publically put to death (head chopped off) despite his antisocial behaviors. He does not deny that he killed the victim.
He shot him three more times, after the first bullet, because he said, 'what difference did it make?'

When you read the book in the original French version, are these the same circumstances you remember reading?

Vaguely. Of course, I had only had a year or two of French, and translating it was difficult enough, without it being a philosophical (existentialist)-type book and back then, the only true crime I had followed was probably the Manson murders, and maybe Jeffrey McDonald, so I didn't even understand the concept of a sociopath.

Perhaps AL's strategy is: Don't let Casey's fate become that of The Stranger's, even though we admit she is a sociopath??? Seems stupid to me, especially when they appear to be going with a SODDI defense.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The Defense wants to know what evidence (forensic) the State has that ties KC directly to the place where Caylee's body was found. They want print evidence, DNA evidence, shoe evidence, that links KC directly to the remains site.

Otherwise, the Defense will claim that somebody else could have put Caylee there.

 

[ZsaZsa]

The Defense wants to know what evidence (forensic) the State has that ties KC directly to the place where Caylee's body was found. They want print evidence, DNA evidence, shoe evidence, that links KC directly to the remains site.

Otherwise, the Defense will claim that somebody else could have put Caylee there.

It would be nice if they have all that evidence,but is it critical if they don't, since they do have the evidence of a dead Caylee in Casey's car, and as far as I know she has not tried to blame this on a carjacking with kidnapping( yet).
The site was basically a swamp... what shoe evidence would still be present after 6 months? We do apparently have the witness of a local kid who saw Casey's car there...FWIW.

 

[logicalgirl]

Found this:

A Defendant has no constitutional right to a statement of particulars listing the aggravating circumstances the State will rely on during the penalty phase trial. This limitation is seldom a real problem since most aggravating circumstances arise out of the facts of the case. (Clearly not in all cases:banghead

Recently the Supreme Court of Florida has approved trial judges ordering the prosecutor to disclose the aggravating circumstances the State intends to rely on at trial. The Court justified the required disclosure on the grounds that prior case precedent was decided when there were only six aggravating circumstances listed on the statute and the number has now creeped up to 16, many of which overlap.

The Court noted that under current Florida law the trial judge cannot prohibit the State from relying on an undisclosed aggravating factor. The discovery violation would at best justify a continuance.

While the Court authorized the trial judge to order aggravating circumstances to be disclosed, it did not require the defendant disclose mitigating circumstances. The Court pointed out there is a difference in proving aggravating circumstances and proving mitigators. In order for the death penalty to be a possible penalty, the State must prove at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas, to obtain a life sentence, the defendant need not prove anything in mitigation.

Trial judges should order the disclosure of aggravating circumstances early in the case, hold a pretrial conference prior to the beginning of the penalty phase, if not before, and insist that counsel provide a written list amending the aggravating circumstances previously disclosed and setting forth all mitigating circumstances in order to avoid surprise an error in evidentiary findings.

So, my pea brain reads this as saying that HHJP was quite right in ordering disclosure of aggravating circumstances, but it looks like the complete details are not necessary until we are closer to trial.

Also - the defendant has the right to NOT appear in shackles during the penalty phase.

 

[Intermezzo]

Found this:

A Defendant has no constitutional right to a statement of particulars listing the aggravating circumstances the State will rely on during the penalty phase trial. This limitation is seldom a real problem since most aggravating circumstances arise out of the facts of the case. (Clearly not in all cases:banghead

Recently the Supreme Court of Florida has approved trial judges ordering the prosecutor to disclose the aggravating circumstances the State intends to rely on at trial. The Court justified the required disclosure on the grounds that prior case precedent was decided when there were only six aggravating circumstances listed on the statute and the number has now creeped up to 16, many of which overlap.

The Court noted that under current Florida law the trial judge cannot prohibit the State from relying on an undisclosed aggravating factor. The discovery violation would at best justify a continuance.

While the Court authorized the trial judge to order aggravating circumstances to be disclosed, it did not require the defendant disclose mitigating circumstances. The Court pointed out there is a difference in proving aggravating circumstances and proving mitigators. In order for the death penalty to be a possible penalty, the State must prove at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas, to obtain a life sentence, the defendant need not prove anything in mitigation.

Trial judges should order the disclosure of aggravating circumstances early in the case, hold a pretrial conference prior to the beginning of the penalty phase, if not before, and insist that counsel provide a written list amending the aggravating circumstances previously disclosed and setting forth all mitigating circumstances in order to avoid surprise an error in evidentiary findings.

So, my pea brain reads this as saying that HHJP was quite right in ordering disclosure of aggravating circumstances, but it looks like the complete details are not necessary until we are closer to trial.

Also - the defendant has the right to NOT appear in shackles during the penalty phase.

You're Awesome :leaf2:

 

[logicalgirl]

Muzikman just posted the SA listing of the Aggravating Factors they are going after in a new thread!
:woohoo:

Five - two very easy one!

One needed to qualify for a guilty verdict and the death penalty.

 

[logicalgirl]

You're Awesome :leaf2:

I'll let you in on a little secret - Shhh - don't tell anyone. I printed out the whole darn 250 pages of Florida Judicial Studies for (2009) Conducting The Penalty Phase of a Capitol Case - because I was getting confused with all the difference factors during the trial.

As a bit of an old duffer, I do a better intake on a printed document than an online file. :blushing:

 

[JBean]

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104580"]2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is this Jeanene Barrett, the Mitigation specialist? This is from Joy Wray, apparently on an expedition to Walgreens with the defense team....:innocent:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-5Z9maU85c&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[mitzi]

Is this Jeanene Barrett, the Mitigation specialist? This is from Joy Wray, apparently on an expedition to Walgreens with the defense team....:innocent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-5Z9maU85c&feature=player_embedded

Apparently so...and from the one picture from one of the other hearings that has LDB speaking, I see Barrett sitting next to two of what we thought were students of A LyonS....wonder if she visited KC around the time period of that hearing. :waitasec:

 

[gamom]

I think the defense already waived the right to use temporary insanity as a mitigating factor since KC was deemed mentally stable when arrested. However, if the defense could some how call Zanny to the stand to testify then have KC get up and come to the stand and pretend to be Nanny...I think they would have a chance to get her LWOP with most of the time spent in the mental hospital.

I said before that the insanity defense was going to be her only way of getting off...She laid the foundation for this case at the beginning when she took LE to her imaginary job at universal...then to the Nanny's imaginary apartment. All she had to do was go one step further and claim to actually SEE Zanny and start talking to her about Caylee. Everyone in her family already thought something was not right with her...she may have been able to pull it off. Heck, I would buy that she was crazy. It would explain the tatoo and the partying after the fact. Part of me really thinks she MAY have something else going on in that head of hers.

 

[logicalgirl]

I can't tell you how annoying it is to hear that it is being described as a "win" for the defense that the SA has to give them the aggravating circumstances they intend to pursue! Ack!

Yes, they do have to - it is part of the pre-trial process - defined in the judicial requirements. That's why the motion was granted. Big deal. The SA knew it was a requirement and was expecting it. The SA gave them what is expected of them, and nothing more.:dance:

 

[nancy botwin]

Is this Jeanene Barrett, the Mitigation specialist? This is from Joy Wray, apparently on an expedition to Walgreens with the defense team....:innocent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-5Z9maU85c&feature=player_embedded

Whoa. That video freaks me out. Thanks for finding it

 

[countzero]

Whoa. That video freaks me out. Thanks for finding it

Freaky does not adequately describe JWs videos. So, JBarrett was the gal sitting next to ICA during the sidebar at the last hearing passing notes to her.
? O....K.......

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I think the defense already waived the right to use temporary insanity as a mitigating factor since KC was deemed mentally stable when arrested. However, if the defense could some how call Zanny to the stand to testify then have KC get up and come to the stand and pretend to be Nanny...I think they would have a chance to get her LWOP with most of the time spent in the mental hospital.

I said before that the insanity defense was going to be her only way of getting off...She laid the foundation for this case at the beginning when she took LE to her imaginary job at universal...then to the Nanny's imaginary apartment. All she had to do was go one step further and claim to actually SEE Zanny and start talking to her about Caylee. Everyone in her family already thought something was not right with her...she may have been able to pull it off. Heck, I would buy that she was crazy. It would explain the tatoo and the partying after the fact. Part of me really thinks she MAY have something else going on in that head of hers.

No, insanity won't work for ICA, it needs documented proof and one must not know right from wrong..M'Naughten rule..

All that ICA did, she knew if she told the truth, she'd be arrested. She lied to avoid being arrested..

Now, had she gone with the PPD defense, she may have stood a better chance of LWOP vs a DP conviction.

All she's done, goes against the grain of good mothering...JMHO



M'Naughten Rule

The M'Naghten Rule provides as follows: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

The test to determine if a defendant can distinguish right from wrong is based on the idea that the defendant must know the difference in order to be convicted of a crime. Determining a defendant's ability to do so may seem straightforward enough, but dilemmas often arise in cases in which the M'Naghten standard is used. For instance, some issues focus on whether a defendant knew that his or her criminal acts were wrong or whether he or she knew that laws exist that prohibit these acts.

more
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-mnaghten-rule.html

 

[whiteangora]

Freaky does not adequately describe JWs videos. So, JBarrett was the gal sitting next to ICA during the sidebar at the last hearing passing notes to her.
? O....K.......

Yes, and now we can see that J Barrett was the one that Casey gave the big hug. Thanks to the video from JW.........wow, she actually did something helpful.
Here's the pic of the hug from the hearing on May 11, PIC 27.
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/caseyanthony/23516023/detail.html