"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #3

[cecybeans]

Was that in a separate tape? I think I do vaguely recall that.

IIRC, Lenamon stated that to NG on one of her shows. He also indicated that he and JB had a difference of opinion on the strategy and that he had turned JB down when asked if he would resume as KC's DP atty.

 

[QB.]

Actually, I think it was the following day on JVM to explain that he did not mean he thought she could have an insanity defense.

 

[marspiter]

You're correct on felony murder, for I've read Florida's 2009 criminal statues and found no such language. However, your statement on 'lesser charges' is incorrect, as my recent posts make clear.

Based on what? Your opinion? Now there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. That is why we are here right, but here is where I see the problem.

See to me refusing cited evidence placed in front of you and then stating your opinion as fact despite the evidence to the contrary and claiming other posters are wrong with out any evidence to back up your allegations would be considered trolling. For the only reason to do such a thing would be to incite a negative response from others.

Now it would be different if you formed your statement about Second degree Murder if the form of an opinion.

Stating for example:

Juries are not allowed to consider second degree murder.
That is stated as fact.

The jury in this case may not have the option to consider murder 2 because the prosecution may not ask for that in the jury instructions.
That is not a fact this is an assumption based on your cognitive skills.

The jury instructions are thus Murder two can be considered as a lesser charge. That is a fact backed by citation: with link, and posting of the actual language.

HTH

 

[2goldfish]

I'm don't recall reading your request before. Nevertheless, depending the criminal charge or charges in a case predicated solely on circumstantial evidence, some examples of highly reliable inculpatory evidence might well be: fingerprints, DNA, unique footprints, unique tire tracks, a defendant being found with blood splatter from the victim on their person and/or being found in possession of the murder weapon, etc..

HTH

Wudge in this case fingerprints and dna all over wouldnt necessarily be inculpatory as you say - due to the accused being the deceased's mother - would expect her prints and dna all over her and her things, you know? even prints on the duct tape wouldnt convince those sure of an "accident with panic cover" theory.

 

[Wudge]

You are incorrect, as Florida's jury instructions make clear.

They trump your opinion.

Florida's jury instructions do not make clear what others (such as yourself) hold. As relates to the jury instruction at issue (introduction to homicide), Casey is charged with but murder one and manslaughter. Thus, the charges would need to be amended before the jury could consider murder two or any other additional charge cited in the introduction to homicide instruction. Moreover, it is certainly not the jury that will 'give as applicable' (chuckle).

 

[mydailyopinions]

Wudge, I have a question if you don't mind, and please don't think I am being snarky at all, I am just very curious...

I see that you know a good bit about the law, about trials and such.. and you really give a good debate here..
My question to you is:
Out of all the cases you have argued here, how many people whom you thought the state didn't hold enough evidence to convict, were convicted?
Thank you!

 

[Wudge]

Wudge in this case fingerprints and dna all over wouldnt necessarily be inculpatory as you say - due to the accused being the deceased's mother - would expect her prints and dna all over her and her things, you know? even prints on the duct tape wouldnt convince those sure of an "accident with panic cover" theorist.

I won't disagree. Case facts would, of course, be critical. I simply responded to a request for examples.

 

[Just Jayla]

T Lenamon is a DP attorney from Miami who put together a brief last year that suggested mitigating circumstances for the DP, including pictures of KC as a child, information on other mom-killers and an explanation that Caylee most likely died as a result of a sedative overdose and that KC was most likely suffering from some kind of PPD-related syndrome. (which was interesting, because that was a completely different angle that JB or Todd B had been promulgating in the media).

Mods, I tried to find the DP thread and cannot, please help me to move if you please (unless that thread was closed of course!)

I remember this....but seeing what we have seen from the beginning of this case, I think the mitgating circumstances are weak when contrasted with the aggravating circumstances. The best "mitigating circumstance" KC could have hoped for was her parents advocacy for Caylee's wishes, but the A's blew their credibility and their sway, and surely will continue this trend at trial.

I believe she is different from other filicidal mothers in a few hardcore ways, too....like 31 days missing while she partied.

 

[marspiter]

Whats not clear about this?

"Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful."

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I have a question if you don't mind, and please don't think I am being snarky at all, I am just very curious...

I see that you know a good bit about the law, about trials and such.. and you really give a good debate here..
My question to you is:
Out of all the cases you have argued here, how many people whom you thought the state didn't hold enough evidence to convict, were convicted?
Thank you!

Over the past eighteen years, I've posted online against approximately forty-five high-profile cases. Around thirty of those cases went to trial. Of those thirty (or so) cases, I would have voted to convict in ten (or so) of the trials.


(I've posted case details within the last six to seven weeks. You can search my posts for same.)

 

[mydailyopinions]

Over the past eighteen years, I've posted online against approximately forty-five high-profile cases. Around thirty of those cases went to trial. Of those thirty (or so) cases, I would have voted to convict in ten (or so) of the trials.


(I've posted case details within the last six to seven weeks. You can search my posts for same.)

Thanks Wudge,
So you are saying that of those 30, you felt that 10 were guilty but the other 20 were convicted as well?

 

[Rlaub44]

Florida's jury instructions do not make clear what others (such as yourself) hold. As relates to the jury instruction at issue (introduction to homicide), Casey is charged with but murder one and manslaughter. Thus, the charges would need to be amended before the jury could consider murder two or any other additional charge cited in the introduction to homicide instruction. Moreover, it is certainly not the jury that will 'give as applicable' (chuckle).

Here again is the relevant section from the jury instructions:
Florida Jury Instruction:

7.1 INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE

Read in all murder and manslaughter cases.
In this case (defendant) is accused of (crime charged).

Give degrees as applicable.
Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful.

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find (victim) was killed by (defendant), you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was (crime charged) or was [Murder in the Second Degree] [Murder in the Third Degree] [Manslaughter], or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

Note that Murder in the First Degree includes Murder Two. It does not need to be separately charged, as is again indicated in the later passage. It asks the jury to consider if the killing was the crime charged (in this case Murder One) or was one of the lesser included charges.

It spells out that they may consider the crime charged, or the lesser included, which therefore means the defendant does not have to be charged with those lesser included.

So, the crime KC is charged with is Murder One, but the jury can decide if the killing was M1, or M2, or even justifiable homicide (which would be a difficult sell, IMO).

If you are held up on the "give degrees as applicable", I would suggest that means if prosecution is charging Murder Two, the instructions would include M3, manslaughter, excusable or justifiable. Murder One would not be a lesser included offense for Murder Two.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Whats not clear about this?

"Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful."

In every first-degree murder trial, that does not mean the jury must be instructed on: first degree murder, second degree murder, third degree murder and manslaughter.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wudge and Marspiter, I've read most of this thread. Has either of you discussed the applicability of Florida Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.490?

"If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence."

 

[Wudge]

Thanks Wudge,
So you are saying that of those 30, you felt that 10 were guilty but the other 20 were convicted as well?

In the aforementioned thirty (or so) trials, some defendants were convicted and now are on my top 20 list of likely wrongful convictions. Some defendants were acquitted. Some defendants were proven to have been wrongfully convicted.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Whats not clear about this?

"Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful."

If the charge were Murder in the Second Degree would the jury instruction then be

Murder in the Second Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful."

 

[marspiter]

Wudge and Marspiter, I've read most of this thread. Has either of you discussed the applicability of Florida Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.490?

"If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence."

No that has not been discussed care to elaborate?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the aforementioned thirty (or so) trials, some defendants were convicted and now are on my top 20 list of likely wrongful convictions. Some defendants were acquitted. Some defendants were proven to have been wrongfully convicted.

OT I'd still love to see that list....

 

[sleutherontheside]

Mods, I tried to find the DP thread and cannot, please help me to move if you please (unless that thread was closed of course!)

I remember this....but seeing what we have seen from the beginning of this case, I think the mitgating circumstances are weak when contrasted with the aggravating circumstances. The best "mitigating circumstance" KC could have hoped for was her parents advocacy for Caylee's wishes, but the A's blew their credibility and their sway, and surely will continue this trend at trial.

I believe she is different from other filicidal mothers in a few hardcore ways, too....like 31 days missing while she partied.

I believe there was discussion on the AL thread regarding mitigation. IIRC AL requested meetings between the family members and KC without video for the purpose of discussing mitigation.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84765&highlight=andrea+lyon

Perhaps there may be some info here. Additionally....the lack of credibility from the A family may actually work IN FAVOR of the defense for mitigation purposes. As much as it pains me to post that...it is IMO a possibility.

 

[mydailyopinions]

In the aforementioned thirty (or so) trials, some defendants were convicted and now are on my top 20 list of likely wrongful convictions. Some defendants were acquitted. Some defendants were proven to have been wrongfully convicted.

Thank you Wudge!
I received my first jury summons today, lol wish you would come take my place!