Not sure about a plea kitty, but I would imagine the DA had to take into consideration that despite whatever motive evidence they could find on Molly, the reality is TM (and presumably Sharon) are all singing from the same hymn sheet and claiming domestic dispute/self defense. The likelihood of a jury unanimously convicting a Murder 1 charge for both of them is highly unlikely and so Murder 2 charges were sought.
Would be interesting if there was a plea though...
Part of an editorial:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ution-death-penalty-bar-high-article-1.160804
"As the verdict was read in the Casey Anthony murder trial on Tuesday in a Florida courtroom, our collective jaws dropped.
How could the jury possibly find Anthony not guilty of murdering her daughter, Caylee? Wasn't Anthony a sociopathic party girl who didn't want to be a young unwed mother, so she killed her own daughter in cold blood?
That is certainly the image of her portrayed by the prosecutor and the news media during the course of the highly publicized trial. But while the public and the media generally blame Anthony for Caylee's murder, the jury was unconvinced by the prosecutor's case against her - and there are several understandable reasons why.
It must be remembered that the burden of proof on the prosecution of any trial is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high hurdle to clear in a criminal case, especially one involving the grave allegation of murder.
Against Anthony, the prosecutor employed an extremely high-risk strategy by charging her with first-degree murder and, in addition, asking for capital punishment. This strategy meant that all of the jurors had to be willing and prepared to apply the death sentence if, in the end, they believed that Anthony was guilty of the premeditated murder of her daughter. But before that, they had to be convinced of her guilt in order to do so, and that strenuous burden of proof weighed heavily on the state throughout the trial.
Indeed, capital punishment is a very difficult decision for a jury to reach in a first-degree murder trial, even when there is direct forensic evidence of the crime - such as, for example, the murder weapon with the defendant's fingerprints on it.
But in this trial, however, the state had only a "circumstantial" case against Anthony, meaning that none of the evidence linked Anthony directly to Caylee's murder. Although it is not impossible (Scott Peterson, convicted in 2004 of killing Laci Peterson, being a notable exception), juries rarely convict or invoke the death penalty in first-degree murder trials when all of the evidence is circumstantial.
In just about every case, jurors like to see the "smoking gun." But in this case, the most convincing evidence was the "smell of death" and presence of Caylee's hair in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed postmortem growth (i.e., occurring after death). Although powerful, it was still circumstantial evidence.
There is also the question of motive on Anthony's part. She was portrayed by the prosecutor as a lying and irresponsible party girl who wanted her freedom. However, there was no evidence at all in the trial that Anthony was either abusive or neglectful of Caylee. Moreover, the mother had no prior criminal record.
In short, the evidence presented by the prosecution was simply not enough to fully convince the jury that Anthony was guilty of murder - and the jury clearly sensed as much.
Arguably, the prosecution "overcharged" the case against Anthony and would have been better off going with a charge of nonnegligent manslaughter or even second-degree murder, both of which do not require proof of deliberation or premeditation by the defendant. In the end, boldness did not carry the day.
Snip"
