Attorney Seeks To Spare Casey Anthony From Death Penalty

[Chilly Willy]

(emphasis added by Chezhire)
which was June 15...in his statement to LE. I'll look for the link for you, k.

in whose statement? I'll be watching for that link, thanks.

 

[JaneInOz]

I don't understand how your laws work ? as in how can you convict someone of Murder when there is no body? dont get me wrong I think Caylee is dead and I think Casey did it.. (or knows who did but i am more inclined to think it was her - but not premeditated)
But I still dont even know how someone can be convicted with out hard evidence or witnesses or a body ?

 

[BeanE]

I don't understand how your laws work ? as in how can you convict someone of Murder when there is no body? dont get me wrong I think Caylee is dead and I think Casey did it.. (or knows who did but i am more inclined to think it was her - but not premeditated)
But I still dont even know how someone can be convicted with out hard evidence or witnesses or a body ?

Our laws go by what's termed the "preponderance of the evidence". Not just one thing or a few things, but when you put together *all* the facts of the case, as presented in court, what does the greatest weight of all those facts together point to?

Jurors then must see if their conclusion 'matches' any of the charges they are there to consider, as well as the defendant(s) they are there to consider. If they have a match, there is a conviction. If not, there is no conviction of the defendant(s) on trial for the current charge(s).

ETA: I have to add that our laws and procedures surrounding this are all based on the premise that a person is "innocent until proven guilty". Our laws don't take lightly the possibility of convicting and punishing someone who is innocent, and err on the side innocence. Even so, we still end up with innocent people convicted and punished, although it's rare.

An interesting case to look at in this regard would be O.J. Simpson. You can hardly find a U.S. citizen who doesn't 'know' in their heart and mind that he brutally murdered two people. Yet our laws and court system and procedures found him "not guilty" and allowed him to walk free.

Please note that here on WS we're not bound by the laws or procedures above. A lot of discussion here, I'd venture to say most of it, is what's in our hearts and minds. Even when we say "fry her"

We can talk about here our opinions (because we have free speech which allows us to say here what's in our hearts and minds), things that would *never* be allowed to be brought up in court during a trial (to ensure that "innocent until proven guilty" is followed).

I hope I've provided some good explanation without screwing things up too badly lol. I'm sure others will be along soon to provide more info and clarification. There are people here with astoundingly thorough knowledge of our legal system.

 

[JaneInOz]

Hi thanks BeanE its something that has been bugging me since she was indited (see we don't have that here either) makes it confusing...

So with all the media on this will she get a fair trial? as in without a body could they actually send her down for the death penalty ?

I just cant see a fair trial happening with the media hype on this case , after all, the pics that have been circulating are disgusting (some of them)

And whatever the particulars are - everyone deserves the right to a fair trial.

But you would think given whats on the table , if it was an accident that she covered up that she would SPILL the beans by now ?

Maybe her Mother
(cindy)did it ? and she is protecting her mother, on the promise of something ? weird I know but I dont get why she isnt plea bargaining or coughing her guts up, and saying it was a accident and the body is blah blah...

Shes just like cruising through jail like its NOTHING to be in there for murdering a child ... its so bizarre !

 

[shgrbkr]

It's too bad they didn't indict for felony murder. Of course, I realize I am making a lot of assumptions here but for argument's sake, I'm going to pretend they aren't assumptions.
If KC made a concious decision to drug Caylee, this is felony child abuse. Imprisoning her in a car or car trunk could also be construed as a felony. Whether or not the death was intentional or not is irrelevant--it still qualifies for felony murder and/or first degree murder as per the legal definition:

A murder that is committed with premeditation OR during the course of a serious felony or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law.

Accident or not is now a moot point, and became moot when she made the concious decision to NOT call 911 and concocted the elaborately detailed story of the nanny, and all that garbage. Her blatant refusal to concede anything to LE is going to keep it a moot point.

 

[JaneInOz]

Thanks for the Extra Info BeanE - your laws are fascinating I must say because there are many diversified ones..
I DO sometimes wish we had a legal system like America's but then I am glad we do not ( not trying to upset anyone here) but I have seen/read about many who have been put to death and end up being proven innocent.
Even here in Australia it happens as well, but the difference is they get to walk out of jail when proven innocent.
Andrew Mallard, The Mickelberg brothers are some of the more infamous ones of late..
You probably guessed by now I don't believe in the death penalty because of those reasons, even if one innocent is put to death its too many ... BUT ... having said that if someone did something horrendous (too horrendous to say) I don't know how I would feel..perhaps my view would change...I do not know and I hope to god I never know...

I just wish she would stop smiling those teeth of hers and own up to what happened and tell where Caylee is so she can have a proper burial *cry*

 

[BeanE]

Yw, Jane. All I can do about the media and fair trial is give you my own personal opinion, which is that yes, she will get a fair trial. We have so much in place not only with our laws, but also with watchdog organizations, that I feel confident of it. Should her defense, or a watchdog organization, raise a red flag on a valid point, many people will listen, and will raise a stink. As much vitriole as you see here on WS against Casey right now, if a legitimate point were raised that she was not receiving a fair trial, you'd see holy hell raised here on her behalf, and no let up until justice was served.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is pounded into our heads here from childhood, even to the point where many U.S. citizens find it difficult to separate it from our right to free speech. You can see that happening right here on this board every day. It's just ingrained in us to give *everyone* a fair trial, with very wide latitude protecting their innocence until conviction.

As for giving the death penalty when there's no body, it's not the most common circumstance, but yes, it can be done, and has been done. You might be interested in 'The Innocence Project' for statistics and more info on wrongful convictions regards the death penalty.

Hi thanks BeanE its something that has been bugging me since she was indited (see we don't have that here either) makes it confusing...

So with all the media on this will she get a fair trial? as in without a body could they actually send her down for the death penalty ?

I just cant see a fair trial happening with the media hype on this case , after all, the pics that have been circulating are disgusting (some of them)

And whatever the particulars are - everyone deserves the right to a fair trial.

But you would think given whats on the table , if it was an accident that she covered up that she would SPILL the beans by now ?

Maybe her Mother
(cindy)did it ? and she is protecting her mother, on the promise of something ? weird I know but I dont get why she isnt plea bargaining or coughing her guts up, and saying it was a accident and the body is blah blah...

Shes just like cruising through jail like its NOTHING to be in there for murdering a child ... its so bizarre !

 

[PhoneBoothBandit]

Well people here say she is narcissistic, a sociopath and has an avoidance disorder. That would very well make a case for a mental disorder or mental illness. It's not fair to say she shouldn't use that defense, but at the same time claim she has these disorders.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Sammiejam]

Well people here say she is narcissistic, a sociopath and has an avoidance disorder. That would very well make a case for a mental disorder or mental illness. It's not fair to say she shouldn't use that defense, but at the same time claim she has these disorders.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

NPD, sociopath and avoidance disorder are all personality disorders which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from mental illness. She does suffer personality disorders but DEFINATELY is not mentally ill.

I dont think personality disorder is a defence or a mitigating factor is it?

 

[Meagain]

Still no word from Baez huh? Interesting. Maybe today. This is a HUGE deal and surely reporters are anxious to get to him on it.

That and the document dump today - woot.

 

[Elley Mae]

PP O/T on the 15th phone KC and Amy conversation (cramps first time in 3 years which one?

 

[dreamerlin]

It might be wise for the prosecution to take the death penalty off the table. If one person on that jury has a problem with the possibility of Casey getting death - they may not vote to convict on murder one.

But I thought in cases such as this that it was done in two stages to prevent just such a situation. First to decide guilt and then second to decide sentence.

 

[BeanE]

Well people here say she is narcissistic, a sociopath and has an avoidance disorder. That would very well make a case for a mental disorder or mental illness. It's not fair to say she shouldn't use that defense, but at the same time claim she has these disorders.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

None of those conditions are classed as mental illnesses. Generally, mental illnesses are conditions involving a break with reality and an inability to function. There's a psychosis present.

The conditions you mention are personality disorders and neuroses, and don't involve detachment from reality or (usually) prevent daily functioning. There's no psychosis, only neurosis. Most human beings have neuroses of one kind or another, either all their lives, or at various times in their lives. Some people do have a neurosis that is so severe, it interferes with daily functioning. Obsessive compulsive disorder comes to mind. OCD can be bad. They're still not mentally ill though, since there's no break from reality. They just have the neurosis so bad it gets to the point where they can't do the things people need to do on a daily basis (work, bathe, eat, groom, pay the bills, feed the dog).

Not only won't and can't those conditions fly under the terms of legal insanity, they don't fly as mental illnesses within the mental health community's definitions of mental illness.

One of the great things the detectives did who interviewed Casey at Universal was prove she's not mentally ill. It was so good, it could probably be used in classrooms to train detectives.

They asked all the right questions, in just the right way, to freely allow Casey the opportunity to exemplify any mental illness she might have. She came through with flying colors, on every single point of determination, showing no signs whatever of mental illness. Examples:

- She was perfectly aware of where she was, and where she had been.

- She was perfectly aware of what she was doing, and what she had been doing.

- She was perfectly aware that she was lying, and had been lying.

- She was perfectly aware that her lies were just that - lies. e.g. she knew she did not have a job or office at Universal, but rather that she was deliberately telling a lie, while knowing the truth the whole time.

- She was perfectly aware of why she was, and had been, doing what she doing.

- etc etc etc

There just are no signs there of any mental illness. But there are lots of big red flashing neon signs that she's a textbook sociopath. A perfectly functioning sociopath. Scary as hell, for sure. Mentally ill, nope.

 

[twitterpated]

NPD, sociopath and avoidance disorder are all personality disorders which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from mental illness. She does suffer personality disorders but DEFINATELY is not mentally ill.

I dont think personality disorder is a defence or a mitigating factor is it?

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Sammiejam. In the state of NC, these disorders will qualify you for Mental Health Counseling, Medication Evaluations, and Community Support Services- they are classified as Mental Health Disorders.

The difference is in the criteria for diagnosis, or her "symptoms". If we see manic and/or depressive symptoms in someone that has Bipolar, people would typically say, "That person is mentally ill." People do not typically think of manipulation and lying as mentally ill, though. Also, you do not typically see someone receiving mental health services for just a Personality Disorder. There is typically a co-occuring disorder (like a Substance Abuse Diagnosis, for example.) Why? Because people get into treatment by self or family report that they think something is wrong with them. Someone with a Personality Disorder is probably not ever going to think any thing is wrong with them. It is the rest of the world that is wrong, in their opinion. And friends and family are just going to say, "She is such a liar!" or "He is so manipulative!"

I don't know of any cases in particular where a Personality Disorder was used as a defense. (Though there may have been some.) My guess is that her psychological profile will come out with yes, a Personality Disorder, but also something else like Bipolar, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc... The defense would use one of these to attempt to justify her being mentally ill.

 

[JaneInOz]

@ Megain I love your little Avatar - too cute !

@ BeanE thanks again and ive had a brief look at the Innocence Project that is very interesting ! I am so glad that is in place...There is a series based around that isnt there ? Cant think of the name of it atm ?
Seems to me a lot of Dark skinned people were wrongly convicted on that website
Sigh its very sad to me that people are ready to accuse based on skin colour

Sorry went off on a tangent there !

Thanks for showing me that site though

 

[ellieit]

Oh I just had one of those light bulb moments. In Florida you are sentenced by a sentencing mandatory guidline and point system. Maybe this is why the defense wants the murder trial before the fruad trial. She would rack up quit a few points with the fraud and if they are hoping for manslaughter she would already have a record and points that would add up to more prison time then the average time would be. Also in Florida I believe that you "HAVE" to serve 85% of your time.

you can go outside the guildline if you have the mitigation circumstances.
They would not have this for the fraud charges, only the murder.

(6) A court may impose a departure sentence outside the sentencing guidelines based upon circumstances or factors which reasonably justify the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence in accordance with s. 921.0016. The level of proof necessary to establish facts supporting a departure from a sentence under the guidelines is a preponderance of the evidence. When multiple reasons exist to support a departure from a guidelines sentence, the departure shall be upheld when at least one circumstance or factor justifies the departure regardless of the presence of other circumstances or factors found not to justify departure. Any sentence imposed outside the range recommended by the guidelines must be explained in writing by the trial court judge

For sentencing:

5) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:

1(a) The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation(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.

6) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.

(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.

(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. (h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

(7) VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.--Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances as described in subsection (5), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community's members by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence.

 

[PhoneBoothBandit]

NPD, sociopath and avoidance disorder are all personality disorders which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from mental illness. She does suffer personality disorders but DEFINATELY is not mentally ill.

I dont think personality disorder is a defence or a mitigating factor is it?

Personality disorders are classed under Mental disorders. Mental disorders and mental illness are used interchangeably.

My understanding is that if she has what has been claimed, she then she has a mental disorder i.e mental illnesses. Do I think that negates the probable fact she killed Caylee? No. Absolutely not. However if she has such disorders, they are obviously going to be used in her defense. Because a personality disorder is a subset of mental disorder/mental illness, a personality disorder (particularly multiple PDs) falls into the realm of 'illness'. Therefore if she has sociopathy, NPD, APD, so on and so forth, it would be legitimate to say that she has mental disorders (or mental illnesses) - is that the causation of Caylee's death? I don't think so.

 

[PhoneBoothBandit]

I respectfully disagree BeanE.

Depression is perhaps the most common mental illness - not all depression is accompanied by psychosis.

Psychosis is an obvious symptom of a mental illness - it is not the classification for one.

 

[ellieit]

I respectfully disagree BeanE.

Depression is perhaps the most common mental illness - not all depression is accompanied by psychosis.

Psychosis is an obvious symptom of a mental illness - it is not the classification for one.

Regardless of the mental disorder all that the state would have to prove is that she knew at the time right from wrong.

Again...The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance

I do not think a jury will find that this is the case. Nor do I think a Judge will find it in sentencing. If this was the case the KC would have not gone through the extreme of covering up the crime, thus showing she knew right from wrong!

 

[ellieit]

also these will all be taken into account prior to sentencing!

Statutes & Constitution Search Statutes -2008-Ch0921-Section 231 Online Sunshine
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/SEC231.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0921->Section%20231#0921.231