2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[Aedrys]

Couldn't KC confess to the "accident and I panicked scenario" and there still be evidence that the Defense could try to use for their advantage but would also very much fit into the SA's Case?

They could except for one thing. I don't know ANYONE that reaches for duct tape when they are panicking. They can try to say she panicked all they want, but I cannot get past that. No one in a panic because a human being may be hurt or dead reaches for duct tape to help the situation. That is clearly NOT a normal human panic thought process.

 

[logicalgirl]

LG, sorry if I misunderstood you!

IMO the "particulars" as used in the context above just means the list of aggravating circs. And HHJP's order only required a list. And the State provided a list. Now the defense has the list, and all the evidence, but they want the State to match up which evidence goes with which aggravating circumstance. Which IMO is work product info and the defense can do it their own d@m selves.

IMO the only reason HHJP would grant this motion is because it would avoid an appeal issue and would not be that big a deal for the SA to hammer out an explanation for each aggravating circumstance. In fact, the SA might even enjoy it....

Gotcha - thanks! That is exactly what I wanted to know.:dance:

Note to self: LG, slow down and say what you mean....

 

[okiedokietoo]

They could except for one thing. I don't know ANYONE that reaches for duct tape when they are panicking. They can try to say she panicked all they want, but I cannot get past that. No one in a panic because a human being may be hurt or dead reaches for duct tape to help the situation. That is clearly NOT a normal human panic thought process.

I am not saying I believe the "accident scenario", I don't! - this was in reference to posts above about the possibility that the Defense knows of some evidence against KC , that they have heard of from KC, and if that is why they are digging so hard to find out what the SA has, to see if the SA might know also. And I think there is a very good chance that is part of their plan

 

[The World According]

Regarding the state asking for details from the state regarding their list of aggravating factors:
Rule 3.140(n) Statement of Particulars. The court, on motion, shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars when the indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. The statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney. Reasonable doubts concerning the construction of this rule shall be resolved in favor of the defendant.



Here's a few cases that deal with a statement of particulars, an accused person's right to a statement of particulars, and the purpose of such a statement:



Saldana v. State, 980 So.2d 1220

Miller v. State, 764 So.2d 640

Brown v. State, 462 So.2d 840

Hunter v. State, 200 So.2d 577

Martin v. Karel, 143 So. 317



The Hunter case is from the 3rd DCA and the Martin case is a Florida Supreme Court case.
Go to the Florida Supreme Court home page at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Go to the Florida Courts Home Page Go to the Florida State Courts home page at http://www.flcourts.org

http://www.wftv.com/news/23621581/detail.html

Motion to Strike: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23621475/detail.html

 

[Angel4u2Whisper2]

Regarding the state asking for details from the state regarding their list of aggravating factors:
Rule 3.140(n) Statement of Particulars. The court, on motion, shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars when the indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. The statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney. Reasonable doubts concerning the construction of this rule shall be resolved in favor of the defendant.



Here's a few cases that deal with a statement of particulars, an accused person's right to a statement of particulars, and the purpose of such a statement:



Saldana v. State, 980 So.2d 1220

Miller v. State, 764 So.2d 640

Brown v. State, 462 So.2d 840

Hunter v. State, 200 So.2d 577

Martin v. Karel, 143 So. 317



The Hunter case is from the 3rd DCA and the Martin case is a Florida Supreme Court case.
Go to the Florida Supreme Court home page at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Go to the Florida Courts Home Page Go to the Florida State Courts home page at http://www.flcourts.org

http://www.wftv.com/news/23621581/detail.html

Motion to Strike: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23621475/detail.html

:waitasec: huh? Sorry I't is late but what did you jus say? :blushing:

 

[Aedrys]

I am not saying I believe the "accident scenario", I don't! - this was in reference to posts above about the possibility that the Defense knows of some evidence against KC , that they have heard of from KC, and if that is why they are digging so hard to find out what the SA has, to see if the SA might know also. And I think there is a very good chance that is part of their plan

I am sorry. I keep going overboard when people post on defense strategies. I didn't mean to suggest that you believed that, only that they could try it and it would fail spectacularly, but I can see where it sounded like I was jumping on you too.

I do think you are on to something. I do think they are afraid the state does have something that might blow apart whatever strategy they are cooking up to defend Casey. Either she told them something that they think the SA has, or they are just worried that the SA has something more they haven't revealed yet. If I was them, I would be worried. But I also wouldn't expect the SA to hand walk me through everything. Sheesh. Acting like a kindergartener is a horrible defense strategy, KWIM?

It's sad that they don't realize how much their unprofessionalism alone has cost them in this case. I wouldn't blame Casey for appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel. This motion is a waste, a HUGE waste.

 

[Marina2]

I don't think they are seeking to find out if the state has evidence KC may have told them about. I don't think she has told them anything. However, the defense is not stupid (contrary to popular belief, I know). They've seen the same evidence we've seen and I do believe they've come to the conclusion she is guilty. I think the defense is looking for something in particular that they themselves anticipate. They fear a particular theory the state may present and are using this motion in an attempt to find out if the state will go that route. There's a good reason for this motion and, imo, it has nothing to do with their inability to define an aggravating factor.

 

[Angel4u2Whisper2]

:angel: The loophole defense? IDK but gosh someone tell them what is going on so we can all get on board and be young enough to see the trial. ummmm not that we are old or anything. :angel:

 

[The World According]

OK then Jose..here you go...
We plan to use the fact that little baby Caylee was under twelve years of age. We plan to enter into evidence her birth certificate, a ten year calender, photos of her two birthday celebrations and sworn testimony that indeed she was two when your client killed her.


We plan to prove that she was in the care of one of her parents. Again, we plan to use the baby's birth certificate that sets out the father is unknown. So, that leaves us with one parent..your client.The defendant's own father has testified under oath to the grand jury that the last time anyone in your client's family saw baby Caylee was when pop saw the pair of them leaving the home on the 16th. We intend to call pop to the stand, we are fully prepared to impeach him should he somehow forget his testimony. We plan to submit for the jury's consideration, the very, very clear fact that the child was not with her when she and boyfriend Tony were wrapped together at Blockbuster.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFJWfWFTXU[/ame] We certainly plan to prove that the baby was at some point in the trunk. The tow yard's security will testify that the car was not tampered with during the time it was in their care. The baby's body was decomposed in items that appear to a reasonable degree of certainty to have come from the Anthony family home, the blanket the hamper, the specialized kind of Henkel duct tape, the garbage bags. Sir even the child's pull ups match the pull ups found in the baby's things at the home and or car. She was alive in her mother's care, and then never seen or heard from again, despite your clients lie about Caylee phoning her . We will be introducing into evidence the phone records, which each and every incoming and outgoing call can be accounted for and none are of any would be lovely, young , straight haired, perfect teeth and perfect ten...Zanny. So yes, Mr. Baez..there are some clues for you. We will be calling pop, Tony, CSI and FBI experts, tow yard officials. Oh, and I almost forgot, we plan to call to the stand the Blockbuster dude. Come on!!!!!!

The state only needs one aggravating factor. Next question Mr. Baez.....
By the way sir where, pray tell, is your reciprocal discovery?
I think these highly experienced prosecutors have been asked for this many times over the years, and know full well what is and is not required of them. The proper time to ask for this was...let's see..immediately after the death penalty was added. When was that, not November 2009, when they did get around to asking for it, by any stretch of the imagination. Did they subsequently file another motion, or did they really wait for another half of a year to bring it up again? Six months!!! This reminds me of them making an appointment to view the TES records, canceled, never rescheduled for over eight months!!!

If we tried to submit this for a made for TV movie, the producer would say no way... it is not believable.
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Vroman : courtpar

A Bill of Particulars, unlike most criminal discovery devices, directly implicates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to make a vigorous and prepared defense in a criminal case. See, United States v. Tanner, supra, 279 F.Supp.
www.supremelaw.org/cc/vroman/courtpar.htm

Regarding my Get a Rope comment, it was a funny commercial from Texas I was speaking of, not a potential dp method, for the love of God!.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY[/ame]
In the words of the Honorable Judge Stan Stickland, "Rule and Roll" Judge Perry. Rule and Roll!!!

 

[okiedokietoo]

I am sorry. I keep going overboard when people post on defense strategies. I didn't mean to suggest that you believed that, only that they could try it and it would fail spectacularly, but I can see where it sounded like I was jumping on you too.

I do think you are on to something. I do think they are afraid the state does have something that might blow apart whatever strategy they are cooking up to defend Casey. Either she told them something that they think the SA has, or they are just worried that the SA has something more they haven't revealed yet. If I was them, I would be worried. But I also wouldn't expect the SA to hand walk me through everything. Sheesh. Acting like a kindergartener is a horrible defense strategy, KWIM?

It's sad that they don't realize how much their unprofessionalism alone has cost them in this case. I wouldn't blame Casey for appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel. This motion is a waste, a HUGE waste.

BBM No problem I do the same thing but I have read enough of your posts to know that you don't jump on posters.You might think that's how it comes across but I have never read anything that you have posted to make me think that. I just wanted to explain what I meant. I realize now re-reading my post that it did come across as defense strategy for an innocent KC.

 

[mitzi]

I think the defense is pushing for some evidence in particular that they suspect the state has. They want it sooner rather than later. I wonder what it is they are so scared of.

At a couple of hearings, the defense keeps mentioning "latent fingerprint evidence"...to which Ashton keeps saying that he knows of none. For some reason, the defense has "latent fingerprints" up their A$$.

 

[faefrost]

At a couple of hearings, the defense keeps mentioning "latent fingerprint evidence"...to which Ashton keeps saying that he knows of none. For some reason, the defense has "latent fingerprints" up their A$$.

I think the defense is absolutely and utterly terrified of the duct tape. LKB's husband stated on one of the news shows back before he was roped into defense duties, just how good an evidence preserver the sticky side of duct tape is. (I wish I could find the show). Their fear is that there is enough of a partial print preserved in the glue somewhere to tie their client to the case, or failing that using its absence to try and raise reasonable doubt. (which in this case just isn't all that reasonable).

 

[ynotdivein]

OK then Jose..here you go...
We plan to use the fact that little baby Caylee was under twelve years of age. We plan to enter into evidence her birth certificate, a ten year calender, photos of her two birthday celebrations and sworn testimony that indeed she was two when your client killed her.


We plan to prove that she was in the care of one of her parents. Again, we plan to use the baby's birth certificate that sets out the father is unknown. So, that leaves us with one parent..your client.The defendant's own father has testified under oath to the grand jury that the last time anyone in your client's family saw baby Caylee was when pop saw the pair of them leaving the home on the 16th. We intend to call pop to the stand, we are fully prepared to impeach him should he somehow forget his testimony. We plan to submit for the jury's consideration, the very, very clear fact that the child was not with her when she and boyfriend Tony were wrapped together at Blockbuster.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFJWfWFTXU We certainly plan to prove that the baby was at some point in the trunk. The tow yard's security will testify that the car was not tampered with during the time it was in their care. The baby's body was decomposed in items that appear to a reasonable degree of certainty to have come from the Anthony family home, the blanket the hamper, the specialized kind of Henkel duct tape, the garbage bags. Sir even the child's pull ups match the pull ups found in the baby's things at the home and or car. She was alive in her mother's care, and then never seen or heard from again, despite your clients lie about Caylee phoning her . We will be introducing into evidence the phone records, which each and every incoming and outgoing call can be accounted for and none are of any would be lovely, young , straight haired, perfect teeth and perfect ten...Zanny. So yes, Mr. Baez..there are some clues for you. We will be calling pop, Tony, CSI and FBI experts, tow yard officials. Oh, and I almost forgot, we plan to call to the stand the Blockbuster dude. Come on!!!!!!

The state only needs one aggravating factor. Next question Mr. Baez.....
By the way sir where, pray tell, is your reciprocal discovery?
I think these highly experienced prosecutors have been asked for this many times over the years, and know full well what is and is not required of them. The proper time to ask for this was...let's see..immediately after the death penalty was added. When was that, not November 2009, when they did get around to asking for it, by any stretch of the imagination. Did they subsequently file another motion, or did they really wait for another half of a year to bring it up again? Six months!!! This reminds me of them making an appointment to view the TES records, canceled, never rescheduled for over eight months!!!

If we tried to submit this for a made for TV movie, the producer would say no way... it is not believable.
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Vroman : courtpar

A Bill of Particulars, unlike most criminal discovery devices, directly implicates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to make a vigorous and prepared defense in a criminal case. See, United States v. Tanner, supra, 279 F.Supp.
www.supremelaw.org/cc/vroman/courtpar.htm

:applause: :bow: :applause:

 

[snoopydoo]

The state only needs one aggravating factor. Next question Mr. Baez.....

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

The defense is trying to put the State in a corner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was (h) the cause of death or (d) an act of aggravated child abuse resulting in death. To prove either, the State needs to prove, a) that Casey applied the duct tape, and b) that Caylee was still alive when the duct tape was applied.

For clarity's sake, I'm not arguing that any of the above will factor into Casey being found guilty. It's a DP motion based on the presumption that she will. What I'm addressing is, during sentencing, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was applied by Casey prior to Caylee's death. In other words, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific cause of death?

If the State can't prove a specific cause of death, then they're basically in the same position they were before the DP was put on the table, hence the argument that they are overcharging the case.


Florida Statute 921.141(5):

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged… in the commission of… aggravated child abuse…

(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.

(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.

 

[Marina2]

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

The defense is trying to put the State in a corner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was (h) the cause of death or (d) an act of aggravated child abuse resulting in death. To prove either, the State needs to prove, a) that Casey applied the duct tape, and b) that Caylee was still alive when the duct tape was applied.

For clarity's sake, I'm not arguing that any of the above will factor into Casey being found guilty. It's a DP motion based on the presumption that she will. What I'm addressing is, during sentencing, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was applied by Casey prior to Caylee's death. In other words, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific cause of death?

If the State can't prove a specific cause of death, then they're basically in the same position they were before the DP was put on the table, hence the argument that they are overcharging the case.


Florida Statute 921.141(5):

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged… in the commission of… aggravated child abuse…

(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.

(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.

That makes so much sense. Thank you.

I guess an added advantage of backing the state into this corner with this DP motion is getting a hint on how they will prosecute the case?

 

[zoey]

That makes so much sense. Thank you.

I guess an added advantage of backing the state into this corner with this DP motion is getting a hint on how they will prosecute the case?

I personally think they just want to know where this is going and how hard they are going to push soddi or punch wholes in the evidence...they also seem to want it all and not think about it or do much of anything :waitasec:-there wasn't a cause of death for Lacy Peterson--and look where sp is living????

Next they will argue that no one seen her do it....welll golly I'm thinking most murders aren't done out in public for all to see...crazy...crazy crazy....:waitasec:

 

[Aedrys]

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

The defense is trying to put the State in a corner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was (h) the cause of death or (d) an act of aggravated child abuse resulting in death. To prove either, the State needs to prove, a) that Casey applied the duct tape, and b) that Caylee was still alive when the duct tape was applied.

For clarity's sake, I'm not arguing that any of the above will factor into Casey being found guilty. It's a DP motion based on the presumption that she will. What I'm addressing is, during sentencing, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duct tape was applied by Casey prior to Caylee's death. In other words, can the State expect to prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific cause of death?

If the State can't prove a specific cause of death, then they're basically in the same position they were before the DP was put on the table, hence the argument that they are overcharging the case.


Florida Statute 921.141(5):

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged… in the commission of… aggravated child abuse…

(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.

(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.

I see what you are saying, but think of it from their point of view. At one time, they had a missing child under suspicious circumstances with the mother lying about everything. There was no body, only 31 days gone by and no one had seen this child.

The circumstances were upped considerably with the car and the bad smell of decomp on it. This made things even more suspicious and so they charge this lying mother with murder. Again, there is no body, just the smell of the body in the back of the car. There's searches, but no body is found yet.

Ongoing throughout all of this and beyond is the Anthony circus, the selling of a lot of pics to ABC, the Casey hokey pokey in and out of jail, and the suspicious search by DC. No body yet, but it's looking more and more like this child is dead and the mom lied about it big time. But again, we get to November, early December, and there's still no body. I can see them waffling over the death penalty because they pretty much know Caylee is dead, just not how she died or what happened to her body. There's only suspicion fueled by lies, crazy parents, and a circus of case going on around them.

Then they find the body, near the home, in the spot where DC was basically looking for the family. It's mostly skeletal and has duct tape all over the face. Up until this point, they couldn't have any surety at all of the cause of death - it could have been accidental, it could have been murder - but now, with duct taped remains and then Dr. G saying that the duct tape was probably applied either right before death or right after - damn right it was a homicide, damn right the mom probably did it, and DAMN RIGHT the death penalty was put back on the table so hard it almost broke the table in two. I'm sorry, but not knowing about the duct tape and then knowing about the duct tape is two ENTIRELY different things.

I cannot see how they were in the same position as before the body was found just because Casey left it there long enough that there's not definitive proof like a fingerprint to say she's the one who put the duct tape on the body. Come on. It was holding Caylee's mandible in place! LA put two and two together, and the death penalty was back on. I don't see a problem with this after everything the family put LE and SA through, and then they finally find Caylee's body. It's not like there wasn't a mountain of evidence piling up against Casey before that time. Finding Caylee's body was the proverbial cherry on top for the SA.

I know if I had been put through hell about this child by her own family, and then saw the duct tape on her face, and I was the SA, you BET I'd put the death penalty back on. The defense just needs to quit whining, I mean quit filing ridiculous motions, and actually start planning a defense for once.

 

[debbie0604]

a little off topic but kinda close...I remember when Ted Bundy was out and about--during one of his little outings or interviews he was told (could be wrong about being told)---about who meant business in the legal arena for death & punishment----he was told Flordia....guess where he went???? (do appologize for bringing him into this---but I used to hang around Lake Sammamish during his time---)

Yep.... and I don't mean to carry it O/T... but wasn't he his own lawyer during one of his trials? Sorry to say, but he seemed to do a better job than Baez...

 

[zoey]

LG, sorry if I misunderstood you!

IMO the "particulars" as used in the context above just means the list of aggravating circs. And HHJP's order only required a list. And the State provided a list. Now the defense has the list, and all the evidence, but they want the State to match up which evidence goes with which aggravating circumstance. Which IMO is work product info and the defense can do it their own d@m selves.

IMO the only reason HHJP would grant this motion is because it would avoid an appeal issue and would not be that big a deal for the SA to hammer out an explanation for each aggravating circumstance. In fact, the SA might even enjoy it.... [/QUOTE]

BBM---I just remember the looks on the defense side when SA told of the particulars of the tape--on piece at a time....and ICA just wanted him to stop...do you think jb really wants to wander down this path again????? I just can't figure them out at times...

I am getting tired of the evil SA "leaking" info to the media when it is all due to the "sunshine law" and they refused the gag order way back when, they have been caught several times filing with the media FIRST....:furious:

 

[debbie0604]

The SA is not required to do JB's digging for him! He want to become famous for trying this case. Well SURPRISE...... You have to build the case & if you don't know what your client did ,ASK HER !ASK ICA!!!!! That is what you are being handsomely paid for. Don't ask the state to gift wrap your demands & put it with your neatly folded bib for breakfast!!!!:banghead::banghead: Or maybe she doesn't trust your competence
If she wants to be stubborn & helpless, then a stroll to the DP chamber won't bother her that much! Enough Already!

ITA! JB is wanted the state to do his work for him. This doesn't make any sense now!! Why didn't he file a motion for a speedy trial after the indictment of murder? Too late now! Do your own work JB!