2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[marspiter]

Here we go again. WFTV has a copy of the motion, http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23621475/detail.html

now, cfnews13 has another version .........

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...ate's Notice of Aggravating Circumstances.pdf

Has the heat gotten to me??????

No case law cited, nor attached. No big surprise there either.

Man I can't believe I'm going to bat for JB on this one...well kinda.

There is case law cited in the motion. The defense cites State v. Steele. However after reviewing that case I don't believe it says what the defense wants for it to say.

Steele does not say anything regarding "particulars" or "facts" it only says that the court can ask the State to submit a "list" of aggravators.

There is also an interesting quote in the courts decision on that case which I have mentioned above.

 

[Cherry Baby]

It could just be all syntax - maybe Baez needs a dictionary, so he can look of the meaning of those big words the SA is using, like 'premeditated' and 'calculating'.

Oh no, I'm not being sarcastic...what makes you say that? :crazy:

So does this motion mean that a hearing can be called just so HHJP can put Baez and Cheney in the corner for a timeout?

I would pay to watch that, btw.

I'd bring the grill and the steaks. Somebody else has to bring the cole slaw.

 

[okiedokietoo]

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.

Wow good point. I really think you might be on to something. So what could it be? Wouldn't it have to be something that the Defense via KC knows of but has not seen in discovery. Is it something KC told someone? Is it the location of the clothes - "they haven't even found the clothes yet", don't think so but who knows? Does it have to do with surveillance/security camera videos of KC? Receipt or video of KC in - wasn't it Target on the 16th? - that shows what KC bought.

 

[countzero]

Man I can't believe I'm going to bat for JB on this one...well kinda.

There is case law cited in the motion. The defense cites State v. Steele. However after reviewing that case I don't believe it says what the defense wants for it to say.

Steele does not say anything regarding "particulars" or "facts" it only says that the court can ask the State to submit a "list" of aggravators.

There is also an interesting quote in the courts decision on that case which I have mentioned above.

Yep, I read your post and it was interesting and I agree with ya. So, no, I don't believe any case law was cited that backs JB and crew up. Only backed into the wall again.....

Hopefully AZlawyer will chime in later to clarify if you were correct.

 

[Marina2]

Wow good point. I really think you might be on to something. So what could it be? Wouldn't it have to be something that the Defense via KC knows of but has not seen in discovery. Is it something KC told someone? Is it the location of the clothes - "they haven't even found the clothes yet", don't think so but who knows? Does it have to do with surveillance/security camera videos of KC? Receipt or video of KC in - wasn't it Target on the 16th? - that shows what KC bought.

No telling but it's probably something that would absolutely seal KC's fate and completely change the direction the defense takes.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

Wow good point. I really think you might be on to something. So what could it be? Wouldn't it have to be something that the Defense via KC knows of but has not seen in discovery. Is it something KC told someone? Is it the location of the clothes - "they haven't even found the clothes yet", don't think so but who knows? Does it have to do with surveillance/security camera videos of KC? Receipt or video of KC in - wasn't it Target on the 16th? - that shows what KC bought.

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!

 

[okiedokietoo]

oops I think it was Walmart

2008.06.16 James T. says he saw Caylee alive around Noon #1
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89603&highlight=witness&page=25

 

[countzero]

No telling but it's probably something that would absolutely seal KC's fate and completely change the direction the defense takes.

IDK about that ..... if the SA did have that evidence, why hold on to it. Just get the plea of guilty from ICA and be done with it and move on to the penalty phase. The state isn't about to waste any more $$$$$ by holding on to that type of slam dunk evidence.

What they currently have is enough to convict IMHO. But more would be icing on the deal.

I keep going back to JBs lip service that ICA is innocent. OK, JB, I'll bite .... let me see it so ICA can get that RV started down the road.

 

[okiedokietoo]

took what Marina2 said to mean something that the Defense knows about and they wonder if the SA knows about too -

Marina2?

 

[cecybeans]

I find the irony (well, hypocrisy really) amazing that JB and Company want the state to spell everything out for them but they can't make the court's deadline for turning in the exculpatory evidence they claimed all over the press they had. Are they trying to set up a faux parallel?

 

[lisalei321]

It could just be all syntax - maybe Baez needs a dictionary, so he can look of the meaning of those big words the SA is using, like 'premeditated' and 'calculating'.

Oh no, I'm not being sarcastic...what makes you say that? :crazy:



I'd bring the grill and the steaks. Somebody else has to bring the cole slaw.

fftopic: I make really good cole slaw!

 

[countzero]

took what Marina2 said to mean something that the Defense knows about and they wonder if the SA knows about too -

Marina2?

Yep, I can see that too ..... would somewhat account for all the motions being tossed around. BUT it would also mean that ICA confessed to JB that she did with premeditation and malice murder Caylee. And that I have difficulty believing.

 

[Marina2]

took what Marina2 said to mean something that the Defense knows about and they wonder if the SA knows about too -

Marina2?

Yes, you read me right

 

[logicalgirl]

Yep, I read your post and it was interesting and I agree with ya. So, no, I don't believe any case law was cited that backs JB and crew up. Only backed into the wall again.....

Hopefully AZlawyer will chime in later to clarify if you were correct.

I quoted this over in Legal Land, but AZLawyer misunderstood my question and so I don't have an answer as to whether or not she thinks HHJP will compel the State to provide particulars.

In the Florida Judicial Studies on Capital Cases which I have, but make no inference at all that I understand it or understand the ramifications of such, it says:

6.4.2 Disclosure of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

"A defendant has no constitutional right to a statement of particulars listing the aggravating particulars the State will rely upon during the penalty phase of the trial. This limitation is seldom a problem since most aggravating circumstances arise out of the facts of the case. However many states require some sort of pretrial disclosure (eg Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Carolina) or at least one of them, to be listed in the indictment itself."

To me using the words aggravating circumstances means the briefly worded list in the State's motion. And if the Defense can't figure it out for themselves from the evidence, why not give them the signposts, so I have no problem with HHJP ordering that motion.

And again IMO, the word particulars as referred to above, means the actual evidence or testimony the State means to use to prove the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. I just can't see why the State would actually have to take the Defense by the hand and lead them to each piece of evidence they need.

I can see the need for it though with this particular Defense team.:banghead:

 

[LambChop]

oops I think it was Walmart

2008.06.16 James T. says he saw Caylee alive around Noon #1
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89603&highlight=witness&page=25

In JT statement to police he did not say noon he said lunch time. If he were working afternoon shift that would be about 4pm. Was that ever confirmed?

 

[Aedrys]

The new ones up have the stamp of the Clerk of the Court. Apparently, Jose "leaked" his "rough draft" instead of the final copy!

*facepalm* Baez, Baez, Baez! Haven't you ever learned in school (and believe me they are on you like white on rice in law school about your writing, well, that was my one year experience of law school) to NEVER turn in a rough draft as your final draft? He needs to ask the state to pay for someone like me, an English professor who can proofread his motions and make sure he turns in the right draft! Sheesh!

Not that I would actually work for him, but jeez. Monkeys could do a better job with motions than him! I mean, why hasn't someone sat him down and said, "Here's how to do a motion properly..."

I sometimes feel like this defense does not care enough about what they are doing as they should...and then I remember that's only a disadvantage to Casey and that makes me feel better, lol.

 

[Bittiness39]

*facepalm* Baez, Baez, Baez! Haven't you ever learned in school (and believe me they are on you like white on rice in law school about your writing, well, that was my one year experience of law school) to NEVER turn in a rough draft as your final draft? He needs to ask the state to pay for someone like me, an English professor who can proofread his motions and make sure he turns in the right draft! Sheesh!

Not that I would actually work for him, but jeez. Monkeys could do a better job with motions than him! I mean, why hasn't someone sat him down and said, "Here's how to do a motion properly..."

I sometimes feel like this defense does not care enough about what they are doing as they should...and then I remember that's only a disadvantage to Casey and that makes me feel better, lol.

Since this links to the topic, on some level, the aggravating factors, the defense aggravates me. Severely. And not because they are the light in the shadows of KC's innocence. They aggravate me...because they have only one person to ask about the case...their client. Their client. Period. End of sentence.

I do believe the defense wants to win for the sake of winning. Outsmarting. Check mate and all of that. I don't believe they believe their client is polly anna and they are taking on the establishment to save this non-soiled dove of a client.

It is simple. The defense wants something. Something that even the ME can't give. To wit. Calyee was skeletonized before her remains were found. Therefore, a clear mo of how her death went down won't be 100%. But the defense and their crying over aggravators does not concern me at all. The dead child was in her car and the dead child was under her care. And Caylee is dead and a fictious phantom nanny did not kill her. And I don't care how immature KC is nor narcissitic KC nor mean or trying to cover for KC her parents were/still are. KC is worthless and not worth all of this broo ha ha from the defense. Smoke and mirrors much. KMA.

 

[okiedokietoo]

In JT statement to police he did not say noon he said lunch time. If he were working afternoon shift that would be about 4pm. Was that ever confirmed?

Believe you are correct. That was the title of the thread. I should have looked to see if there was a thread #2 that might have said "updated" oops

 

[okiedokietoo]

Yep, I can see that too ..... would somewhat account for all the motions being tossed around. BUT it would also mean that ICA confessed to JB that she did with premeditation and malice murder Caylee. And that I have difficulty believing.

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?

 

[AZlawyer]

I quoted this over in Legal Land, but AZLawyer misunderstood my question and so I don't have an answer as to whether or not she thinks HHJP will compel the State to provide particulars.

In the Florida Judicial Studies on Capital Cases which I have, but make no inference at all that I understand it or understand the ramifications of such, it says:

6.4.2 Disclosure of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

"A defendant has no constitutional right to a statement of particulars listing the aggravating particulars the State will rely upon during the penalty phase of the trial. This limitation is seldom a problem since most aggravating circumstances arise out of the facts of the case. However many states require some sort of pretrial disclosure (eg Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Carolina) or at least one of them, to be listed in the indictment itself."

To me using the words aggravating circumstances means the briefly worded list in the State's motion. And if the Defense can't figure it out for themselves from the evidence, why not give them the signposts, so I have no problem with HHJP ordering that motion.

And again IMO, the word particulars as referred to above, means the actual evidence or testimony the State means to use to prove the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. I just can't see why the State would actually have to take the Defense by the hand and lead them to each piece of evidence they need.

I can see the need for it though with this particular Defense team.:banghead:

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....