Prosecutors won't seek death penalty UPDATE Or will they?

[MiraclesHappen]

I agree-- and thank you


I don't know what they're going to say. But I can't wait to find out.

Same here.

And as we might recall, pursuant to the dictates of the Supreme Court,
The jurors can disagree on the issue of whether it is felony murder (one) or premeditated murder (one)

It is still considered a unanimous verdict if half say felony murder and half say premeditated murder...

Naturally, I will think of the case when I am not trying to remember it. :wink:

 

[Wudge]

I agree-- and thank you


I don't know what they're going to say. But I can't wait to find out.

A prosecutor's opening statement typically starts with: "The evidence will show". The evidence can't show that Caylee died of "both" a planned, deliberated and willful murder and also aggravated child abuse.

Prosecutors need to choose, wisely.

 

[nancy botwin]

Same here.

And as we might recall, pursuant to the dictates of the Supreme Court,
The jurors can disagree on the issue of whether it is felony murder (one) or premeditated murder (one)

It is still considered a unanimous verdict if half say felony murder and half say premeditated murder...

Naturally, I will think of the case when I am not trying to remember it. :wink:

Schad v. AZ??

 

[MiraclesHappen]

A prosecutor's opening statement typically starts with: "The evidence will show". The evidence can't show that Caylee died of "both" a planned, deliberated and willful murder and also aggravated child abuse.

Prosecutors need to choose, wisely.

Prosecutors can leave the choice to the jury and work with what they have.

Unlike the defendant, the prosecutors have no script .

 

[impatientredhead]

I think the prosecution feels they'll have a stronger chance of getting a murder one conviction if the death penalty isn't on the table.

Exactly. And given the odds of a jury not coming back with a recommendation for death the additional cost to the taxpayers is not worth it. It is very expensive to hold a DP trial, and this case has cost them a fortune already.

 

[nancy botwin]

A prosecutor's opening statement typically starts with: "The evidence will show". The evidence can't show that Caylee died of "both" a planned, deliberated and willful murder and also aggravated child abuse.

Prosecutors need to choose, wisely.

I see where you're coming from-- but in the case of a felony murder theory based on agg. child abuse, I don't think the prosecution will have to strain much to present a cohesive narrative. The underlying felonies included in felony murder statutes tend to have an inherent element of intentionality.
Casey may not have intended to kill Caylee, but IMO she intended to drug and/or keep her in the trunk of her vehicle (agg. child abuse) and these intentional abusive acts likely caused her death. (felony murder) But that's just my theory.
As MiraclesHappen stated, jurors can and do often employ different decision calculi -- a juror can find Casey guilty of first degree murder under either a premeditation or felony murder theory.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-5551.ZS.html


Justice Souter, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Kennedy, concluded in Part II that Arizona's characterization of first-degree murder as a single crime as to which a jury need not agree on one of the alternative statutory theories of premeditated or felony murder is not unconstitutional. Pp. 4-19.

Schad v. AZ??

I don't think it's the one I was thinking of but it is just about identical in its conclusions.:blowkiss: Thanks!

 

[LeLe1953]

I see where you're coming from-- but in the case of a felony murder theory based on agg. child abuse, I don't think the prosecution will have to strain much to present a cohesive narrative. The underlying felonies included in felony murder statutes tend to have an inherent element of intentionality.
Casey may not have intended to kill Caylee, but IMO she intended to drug and/or keep her in the trunk of her vehicle (agg. child abuse) and these intentional abusive acts likely caused her death. (felony murder) But that's just my theory.
As MiraclesHappen stated, jurors can and do often employ different decision calculi -- a juror can find Casey guilty of first degree murder under either a premeditation or felony murder theory.

I would be one who saw it as premeditated given the computer searches, lie after lie, never reporting her missing, nothing of Caylee's taken such as clothes or toys to indicate she was being cared for. Nothing purchased that we know of for her such as diapers, pull ups, wipes. As bad as it is to keep her in the trunk drugged, I would still be feeding her right? I would also most likely diaper her as I would not want her peeing or pooping all over the trunk as daddy might notice when he cleaned the car. Did she abuse, neglect Caylee, you bet she did. But I also think the death, dumping was NO accident & she gave it months of thought. I think the state can prove that.

 

[Wudge]

I see where you're coming from-- but in the case of a felony murder theory based on agg. child abuse, I don't think the prosecution will have to strain much to present a cohesive narrative. The underlying felonies included in felony murder statutes tend to have an inherent element of intentionality.
Casey may not have intended to kill Caylee, but IMO she intended to drug and/or keep her in the trunk of her vehicle (agg. child abuse) and these intentional abusive acts likely caused her death. (felony murder) But that's just my theory.
As MiraclesHappen stated, jurors can and do often employ different decision calculi -- a juror can find Casey guilty of first degree murder under either a premeditation or felony murder theory.

Aggravated child abuse is not a lesser charge to murder one. Moreover, a conviction on the current aggravated child abuse charge would be just that and nothing more. It would not represent a guilty verdict on felony murder.

If prosecutors want a trial on murder one and lesser charges, that's one trial and one theory.

If prosecutors want to hold a felony murder trial, that's a different trial and different theory.

Prosecutors need to decide what they want to say the evidence will show.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Aggravated child abuse is not a lesser charge to murder one. Moreover, a conviction on the current aggravated child abuse charge would be just that and nothing more. It would not represent a guilty verdict on felony murder.

If prosecutors want a trial on murder one and lesser charges, that's one trial and one theory.

If prosecutors want to hold a felony murder trial, that's a different trial and different theory.

Prosecutors need to decide what they want to say the evidence will show.

I missed where anyone stated that child abuse is a lesser included of murder.
I agree it is not a lesser included and I haven't noticed any language here which would lead to any other conclusion.

That said, if the jury finds the death happened during the commission of aggravated child abuse, that is one of the enumerated scenarios which is felony murder, i.e. murder one per the previously cited Florida statute.

Murder one is defined among other things, as a death which occurs during the commision of aggravated child abuse. No premeditation is called for, per the statute which is still good law in Florida.

The US Supreme Court has stated that there is no need for the prosecutors to choose between the 2 theories as to the details of the commission of murder and that the presentation of their murder case, without a commitment to either a theory of felony murder or a theory of premeditated murder, is Constitutional.

If there is some citation which overrules the US Supreme Court relative to the issue, I hope it would be shared.

I am not convinced it is a display of our best efforts at insuring due process, to allow the law to stand so that:
half the jury convicting on felony murder
plus
half the jury convicting on premeditated murder
equals
a unanimous verdict.

But until the Supreme Court changes its mind, I defer to their decision.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

That said, if the jury finds the death happened during the commission of aggravated child abuse, that is one of the enumerated scenarios which is felony murder, i.e. murder one per the previously cited Florida statute.

SNIP


The US Supreme Court has stated that there is no need for the prosecutors to choose between the 2 theories as to the details of the commission of murder and that the presentation of their murder case, without a commitment to either a theory of felony murder or a theory of premeditated murder, is Constitutional.

If a jury thinks the evidence supports an uncharged crime, it can not find the defendant guilty of that crime. Casey has not been charged with felony murder.

Regarding your Supreme Court reference, I assume you are referring to Schad v. Arizona.

The facts in Schad are nowhere near or even remotely similar to the facts in this case, nor is the massive level of clear and easily assessed evidence in Schad anywhere near the level of totally absent evidence in this case.

Moreover, the Court's opinion in Schad is based on and apply to the unique set of facts in Schad alone. In other words, the finding in Schad is anything but a one-size fits all opinion.

The Court said: "the Due Process Clause does place limits on a State's capacity to define different states of mind as merely alternative means of committing a single offense; there is a point at which differences between those means become so important that they may not reasonably be viewed as alternatives to a common end, but must be treated as differentiating between what the Constitution requires to be treated as separate offenses subject to separate jury findings.

It is impossible to lay down any single test for determining when two means are so disparate as to exemplify two inherently separate offenses. Instead, the concept of due process, with its demands for fundamental fairness and for the rationality that is an essential component of that fairness, must serve as the measurement of the level of definitional and verdict specificity permitted by the Constitution."

 

[sua_sponte]

I'll start by apologizing if this has already been said in the other posts and I missed it.

Does anyone think this decision may be related to a possible Casey pregnancy? We know the GGM suspected it. I saw someone else mention that she looks like she has gained weight. Also, I saw someone else say that she has not ordered tampons or pads in jail (admittedly I don't know how up-to-date that info was). Is there any weight to this theory, or is it totally out there?

 

[Lovejac]

I'll start by apologizing if this has already been said in the other posts and I missed it.

Does anyone think this decision may be related to a possible Casey pregnancy? We know the GGM suspected it. I saw someone else mention that she looks like she has gained weight. Also, I saw someone else say that she has not ordered tampons or pads in jail (admittedly I don't know how up-to-date that info was). Is there any weight to this theory, or is it totally out there?

That makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm. Very interesting, great thought.

 

[Jolynna]

I think the prosecution feels they'll have a stronger chance of getting a murder one conviction if the death penalty isn't on the table.

I agree.

I think Florida's decision not to seek the DP was based more on Casey being a young pretty mom than on the evidence.

It is very rare for women in the U.S. to be given the death sentence.

http://crime.about.com/od/female_offenders/a/row_women.htmI

http://atdpweb.soe.berkeley.edu/quest/Voices/DeathPenalty.html

Of the 50,000+ women in U.S. prisons only .1% are on death row. As of 12/31/07 only 568 out of more than 20,000 people executed since colonial times have been women.

Gender bias especially comes into play when parents murder their offspring. The idealization of the sacred mother-child bond is such that some can't accept that a mother could be responsible unless she were insane. Killer moms get lighter sentences when convicted and are often hospitalized.

http://www.slate.com/id/2063086

 

[Jolynna]

What storyline will prosecutors tell (opening statement) and argue (closing argument) to the jury?

Will prosecutors say that Casey planned and carried out a willful and premeditated murder?

Or will prosecutors say that Caylee died as a result of aggravated child abuse?

Or will prosecutors tell the jury that they don't "reasonably" know what happened?

Note: The last option certainly won't help them with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

I think they will say Caylee died as the result of a willful and premeditated murder. I think the computer evidence will back that up. Plus, IMO, we will hear more about the forensic physical evidence.

As I said, I do not believe Casey would have been charged with first-degree murder without evidence to make that case. I don't think all the prosecutor's cards are on the table yet.

MOO

 

[impatientredhead]

No JBean. I do not know the particulars in that case. It's just one of thousands of felony murder cases that ended up in a seemingly inconceivable way in the minds of those who went to prison or those who are related to those who went to prison.

I only did a nanosecond of research on the web to find that story. I'm sure you could a ton of similar cases just via simple online research.

If you tell one of these stories to a class of High Schoolers, typically the guys eyes will roll all around and some young lady will soon say: "that's not fair, that can't be right".

On the side of felony murder, there are thousands of felony murder cases where, in my mind at least, the application of the statute and penalty did fit the crime, and I was fine with the inflexibility of the statue

I'm sure you understand that I would naturally prefer a more flexible approach. But what I might prefer really matters not. What is important here is simply for posters to truly understand exactly how felony murder works. Like statutory rape, felony murder is also statute driven. Unfortunately, my experiences have taught me that people just can't believe how truly inflexible some laws are.

In Florida this statute is actually up for review in 2009.
As in most cases like this sentencing guidelines are the problem.
Taking away the ability of the judges to apply common sense to the sentencing phase rarely works, and defeats the purpose of having a qualified judge.

 

[Wudge]

In Florida this statute is actually up for review in 2009.
As in most cases like this sentencing guidelines are the problem.
Taking away the ability of the judges to apply common sense to the sentencing phase rarely works, and defeats the purpose of having a qualified judge.

I certainly would not miss the felony murder statute. Though the doctrine serves justice well in some cases, it absolutely destroys the concept of justice in other cases, because its application represents mindless jurisprudence that often results in cruel and unusual punishment.

In states that have the felony murder statute, the measure of justice to culpability is not in for a dime, in for a dollar. It's in for a penny, in for a trillion dollars.

 

[elementary]

I sense sarcasm but that's fine.:blowkiss:

I would refer you to the previously cited statutory definition of murder one per the Florida statute.

If an individual is dumb enough to kill a child in a variety of ways as enumerated in the MURDER ONE STATUTE OF FLORIDA, ALREADY A DAEAD HORSE IN THIS THREAD, then it is murder one without all these elements you see as essential...in contrast to the actual Florida law.

However, since you have refused to accept the repeated citing of felony murder events which have no premeditation and still constitute murder one in Florida let us try this:

In Florida Murder ONE, under the statute:
782.04 Murder.--


...2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:


o. Murder of another human being,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.


Since this type of felony murder HAMMERS home the fact that there is no premeditation, malice aforethought or plan to kill Mr.Y who was accidentally killed while the defendant was trying to murder Mr X,
and that the murder of Y , the unplanned one, is charged as murder one...I'll leave it at that.


So there it is per the Florida statute.

The defendant had no intent to kill Mr. Y.

There was no plan or design to kill Y.
There was no malice aforethought with regard to any actions directed toward Mr. Y. by the killer of Mr. X.
In fact, prior to killing Mr. X, defendant had no idea of the existence of Mr. Y ;
Had the defendant met Mr. Y, they might have become friends.
But that won't be happening because defendant has killed Mr. Y in a manner which was unforseen in the defendant's mind.
The charge is still murder one per the cited statute.

You know, I actually understood that. It's like a little light bulb just came on in my head! I'm copying it as a reference. Miracles DO happen! Thanks! :blowkiss:

 

[kline]

It has been mentioned that Casey will have to face general population if convicted.
Im not sure how Florida differs from my state but here an inmate can request being housed on a protective custody unit if they feel their life is in danger and provide plausible reason for that concern.
Which Im sure she could.
Prison Administration can also decide to simply place them there if they feel its in the best interest of the institution to avoid liabilty and in the inmates best interest.
I doubt she will ever see General Pop unless she requests it and even then Administration would probably deny it.
Since it would be suicide.

 

[BeanE]

'No Body' Murder Cases

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/no-body-murder-cases_b_137791.html

Snips from article:

It's happened in states all over America going back to the 1840's...

Attorney Tad DiBiase, who runs the nobodymurdercases.com Web site, has collected nearly 300 examples of U.S. prosecutors who didn't let the fact that there was no body get in the way of filing murder charges. Debaise says he's discovered only one case in which the missing "victim" was later found alive.

Debaise, a 12 year veteran Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, prosecuted a 'no-body' case and he won a conviction. In fact he's found these cases have an astoundingly high success rate.

"The vast majority result in convictions," he told me, "like 80 or 85%. That could be because they only take the strongest cases to trial."

Steve Banic, of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, says the world wide conviction rate is even higher with only 1 out of 20 defendants winning acquittal. Banic's personal research quest is focused on writing a book that brings together the world's largest collection of 'no body' cases. He's identified two thousand so far. And Banic corrects those (like murderers) who believe that the Latin term corpus delicti refers to the actual dead body. "Basically, corpus delicti ... represents the 'body' of direct and indirect circumstantial evidence that shows that an alleged crime has occurred."

If you take death off the table in exchange for the victim's remains suddenly a no-body case can get solved on lots of different levels.

http://nobodymurdercases.com

http://nobodycases.blogstream.com/v1/p10.html