State files motion to proceed with check fraudUPDATE CASE TO BE SCHEDULED

[amethyst221]

To be fair, I haven't read all the Florida case law on the intricacies of what is the same and what is different as to the crimes charged or if some are lesser included offenses of others. The state may have done some duplication that is outmoded, and something may go. But the argument is specious that one can't be charged for multiple separate crimes that arise out of one transaction or spurt of bad conduct. I think people are on the right track to see the distinct difference between stealing a check, forging a check, and using fake/stolen ID in order to aid in doing so. It appears the legislative marching orders are not to try to be lenient, but to charge all that can be charged, within the statutory limits.

One reason all possible charges get thrown in, to be tried at once, is because you can't try them serially, in the event you lose the first time. Double jeopardy would prevent it. This motion at least appears to have been proofread, which is a good thing.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

More recently, in U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').

In U.S. v. Felix, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (1992), the Court held that 'prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy, where certain of the overt acts relied upon by the Government are based on substantive offenses for which the defendant has been previously convicted, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.' Felix, at 1380. See also Saccoccia, 18 F.3d at 798 (citing Felix, at 1384) ('A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.')

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306 (1984).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm



Here is the definition of Double Jeopardy -

Baez & Co. are pushing certain parts of this to the limit in hopes that it will stick.

Double jeopardy goes beyond being tried for the same offense after being found innocent; Baez claims Casey is being charged multiple times for the same offense but I don't believe that is the case. Casey is being charged with multiple offenses.

Just my NON-LEGAL OPINION, NOT TO BE TAKEN AS FACT OR A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW but this is how I read it...

 

[TakeNote]

has there been any doc dump for the fraud case?

 

[amethyst221]

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

More recently, in U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').

In U.S. v. Felix, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (1992), the Court held that 'prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy, where certain of the overt acts relied upon by the Government are based on substantive offenses for which the defendant has been previously convicted, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.' Felix, at 1380. See also Saccoccia, 18 F.3d at 798 (citing Felix, at 1384) ('A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.')

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306 (1984).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm



Here is the definition of Double Jeopardy -

Baez & Co. are pushing certain parts of this to the limit in hopes that it will stick.

Double jeopardy goes beyond being tried for the same offense after being found innocent; Baez claims Casey is being charged multiple times for the same offense but I don't believe that is the case. Casey is being charged with multiple offenses.

Just my NON-LEGAL OPINION, NOT TO BE TAKEN AS FACT OR A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW but this is how I read it...

I was trying to speak generally, and in non-legalese, but you've pretty much gone straight to the sort of supporting legal authority that makes the point. In the end, I doubt very much that all the charges as to the checks will go away.

 

[Spangle]

Ok, I know someone typed out all the charges and what they were, etc. But I'm at a loss as to how to find it.

IT would be interestign to match up what they are trying to dimsiss, and what the standard punishment is for those crimes.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Here's a better description on the fraud charges...they will not be dismissed, IMO...these are seen as mulitple offenses that go hand in hand with forgery...Hope this helps..

EXCERPT
Forgery is the crime of falsely making, altering or counterfeiting a certain legal document or document of a financial nature. Forgery can relate to any of a number of documents, including checks, prescription blanks, deeds, wills, testaments, bonds, bill, policy of insurance and more.

The criminal offense of “uttering a forged document” involves a person who knowingly publishes or puts into circulation any forged or altered financial document, legal document or other writing with the intent to misrepresent it as true and defraud others.

To “utter” means to distribute or put into circulation (as in legal tender or a forged document) under the pretense that it is genuine. Uttering forged documents is a third degree felony in Florida and may be punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.


http://muscalaw.com/South_Florida_Cr...nstrument.aspx

 

[debs]

Is the defense offering yet another letter to the court, handwritten by Casey, which states "I DID NOT DO THIS." It was so effective in the murder case, and obviously since she says she didn't do it, it must be true.

 

[kaRN]

See, this is what I feel the SA is doing now. Getting KC to either plead guilty or put her on the stand to explain herself. KC already has plead not gulity to these charges of check fraud. JB certainly can't explain it away without KC giving direct testimony. The jury will see right through that; any defendant who can't give direct testimony about why they stole funds in such a large amount, buying carp at the grocery store and targee won't hold water with JB stating KC stole the money to search for Caylee. They will want to hear from KC directly not her attorney.

Didn't Baez already pay the bank back though, despite the fact his client was pleading NG? Who does that????

 

[kaRN]

It will be interesting to see how she acts when Amy takes the stand.

Will it ever!!! I imagine a stony cold stare fired Amy's way and hand rubbing at the speed of light.

 

[Sdavidson11]

Ok, I know someone typed out all the charges and what they were, etc. But I'm at a loss as to how to find it.

IT would be interestign to match up what they are trying to dimsiss, and what the standard punishment is for those crimes.

I found this on the list of old and new charges thread that I will bump up

 

[kaRN]

No, she doesn't have to testify, and no COMPETENT attorney would advise her to do so in the check fraud case. There is nothing she can say that would help her defense.

Noting the operative word bolded above LOL!!

 

[kaRN]

Yup; or on one of those checks she signed with Amy's name the id on the back starts with a "Z"

ETA: And also so that she can use a public defender after the murder trial. No need in a "High Profile" attorney like Baez wasting his time with such a charge. <no I didn't type that with a straight face or even straight fingers.>

The fraud case can pave the way for Zenaida's case and the murder trial. :woohoo:

 

[Spangle]

I found this on the list of old and new charges thread that I will bump up

Thank you, Thank you! Lots of good info in there. That explains the hows and whys.

 

[Spangle]

these are the charges that she has been arrested on. She didn't write 13 checks. Also, please read my explanation in my message with the link just above your message.



Updated as of 9/19/08

to date these are the charges that KC is charged with:
08-CF-0013331-O Filing Date: 7/8/2008
1) UTTERING FORGERY
2) FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
3) CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
4) UTTERING A FORGED CHECK
5) FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
6) CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
7) UTTERING A FORGED CHECK
8) FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
9) CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
10) UTTERING FORGED BILLS / NOTES
An Information has been filed as to the above listed charges (formally charging her)

08-CF-0013520-O Filing Date: 9/4/2008
UTTERING A FORGED CHECK
FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
Please note that on 9/11/08 these charges were closed and consolidate with 48-2008-CF-013331-O

08-CF-0013521-O Filing Date: 9/4/2008
UTTERING A FORGED CHECK
FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
Please note this case has also been closed and consolidated with 08-cf-13331

08-CF-0010925-O Filing Date: 7/16/2008
1) Cr-Neglect of a Child
2) False Report to Law Enforcement Officers
an Information has been filed for these charges

Date Booked: 09/15/2008 (todays new charges)
1) Uttering A Forged Check
2) Fraud. Use Of Personal Ident. Information
3)Petit Theft Of $100 Or More

08-CF-0014154-O Filing Date: 9/15/2008
1) UTTERING A FORGED CHECK
2) FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION
3) CR-PETIT THEFT OF $100 OR MORE
According to the Orlando Sentinel the State has filed an Information on these charges, however, the Clerk's system has not been updated.
__________________
Devorahhh

Not the Biblical Devorah, but a nice one just the same

I think we should see the charges lined out, to see the ones they are trying to dismiss. Found Devorah's post on the thread that Sdavidson11 bumped, dealing with the charges.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Maybe the prosecution would be better off to try the fraud case after the murder trial. Why, well on the off chance the jury comes back with a non guilty verdict in the murder trial, the state could then prosecute on the 13 charges, and Casey could get 13 5 year sentences to be served consecutilvely. She would be almost 90 years old before she would get out of jail.

 

[Spangle]

Uttering Forgery
Fraud. Use of personal Ident. info
Petit theft of $100 or more

Those three things are simply NOT the same thing.

 

[Spangle]

Maybe the prosecution would be better off to try the fraud case after the murder trial. Why, well on the off chance the jury comes back with a non guilty verdict in the murder trial, the state could then prosecute on the 13 charges, and Casey could get 13 5 year sentences to be served consecutilvely. She would be almost 90 years old before she would get out of jail.

Couldn't they do the same before the murder trial?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Ok, I know someone typed out all the charges and what they were, etc. But I'm at a loss as to how to find it.

IT would be interestign to match up what they are trying to dimsiss, and what the standard punishment is for those crimes.

Respectfully bolded by me. I'm not sure if you meant it this way, Spangle, but since fraudulent checks seem to be a quite common crime it seems like we could research how they are normally charged. But I am at a loss to know how to do that. It anyone can give me any hints I'd be happy to do the footwork --- errrrr, fingerwork.

 

[celticthyme]

Ok, I know someone typed out all the charges and what they were, etc. But I'm at a loss as to how to find it.

IT would be interestign to match up what they are trying to dimsiss, and what the standard punishment is for those crimes.

I started a thread on Sept 29, The Grand Jury indictment, a closer look with the charges there,

 

[luvmygarden]

Will it ever!!! I imagine a stony cold stare fired Amy's way and hand rubbing at the speed of light.

Hopefully no tears are shed or AH will defintely see first hand KC wipe them with her middle finger. I felt so bad for GA when we saw that on the video. KC turned their life upside down then shows the ultimate lack of respect for what they have been through.
There are times I do feel bad for these parents even though they have caused the circus they have.