Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

[MD MOMMY]

What does everyone think about the other 2 mitigating factors the SA may or may not use?
"There are two other aggravating circumstances the state may or may not try to prove. One of them is that the defendant benefited financially from the victim's death. The other is that the alleged slaying was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
http://www.wesh.com/news/23488034/detail.html

I don't know all of the legalities behind the mitigating factor, BUT IMO K did benefit financially from the death of Caylee in the form of over 200K. On another note I think the defense is going to use KC's "seizures" somewhere in all of this.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I just realized that I should have said aggravating factors, I changed my original post. Hope I didn't confuse you too much.

Psst, "SA wants defense to reveal mitigating factors." - should have read the opposite.

"The Defense wanted the State to reveal...." :blowkiss:

 

[whiteangora]

Psst, "SA wants defense to reveal mitigating factors." - should have read the opposite.

"The Defense wanted the State to reveal...." :blowkiss:

If you read today's news article you'll see that the State has revealed their aggravating factors to the defense. NOW, they are asking the defense to reveal their mitigating factors.
Here's the link
http://www.wesh.com/news/23488034/detail.html

 

[Patriciao]

So she doesn't get the DP, will she still get life?

 

[KeyboardCat]

Hello!

I've been trying to read and gain a better understanding of what exactly a mitigation specialist does. To my understanding, the job is to find a way to lessen the culpability of someone who has been convicted. Claiming some recognized behavioral or mental disorder, examining dysfunctional relationships, to not justify the behavior that got the defendant into trouble, but to help explain it? I'm sure there is a sympathy factor involved, if someone's life story or upbringing is full of tragedy.

I would also like to point out, that I don't see the need for any mitigation if a defendant will not to admit to any wrongdoing. If the defendant maintains his/her innocence and lack of involvement in the crime whatsoever, there is no need for a person to try to lessen culpability by reasons of mental health or poor upbringing. If a person did not commit a crime, there is nothing to mitigate. Mental health or a poor upbringing cannot be used to explain or justify (to any degree) a crime which a defendant will not admit to.

But I'm glad Mr. Baez said in court that their mitigation specialist is vital to their defense team at the moment. I think it speaks more than volumes that Casey is prepared to admit to something. No use for a mitigation specialist if she doesn't.

 

[Aedrys]

Hello!

I've been trying to read and gain a better understanding of what exactly a mitigation specialist does. To my understanding, the job is to find a way to lessen the culpability of someone who has been convicted. Claiming some recognized behavioral or mental disorder, examining dysfunctional relationships, to not justify the behavior that got the defendant into trouble, but to help explain it? I'm sure there is a sympathy factor involved, if someone's life story or upbringing is full of tragedy.

I would also like to point out, that I don't see the need for any mitigation if a defendant will not to admit to any wrongdoing. If the defendant maintains his/her innocence and lack of involvement in the crime whatsoever, there is no need for a person to try to lessen culpability by reasons of mental health or poor upbringing. If a person did not commit a crime, there is nothing to mitigate. Mental health or a poor upbringing cannot be used to explain or justify (to any degree) a crime which a defendant will not admit to.

But I'm glad Mr. Baez said in court that their mitigation specialist is vital to their defense team at the moment. I think it speaks more than volumes that Casey is prepared to admit to something. No use for a mitigation specialist if she doesn't.

ITA. I just can't see the jury getting the duct tape and the blood money. Nothing on this earth can excuse putting duct tape over your own child's mouth, then profiting off of that death to fund your own defense. I don't care how bad of a life she had, that oh poor me act will do NOTHING to absolve her or make anyone feel sorry for her.

In fact, if I were the prosecution, that's all I'd say - duct tape and blood money, folks. No matter what you hear, remember duct tape and blood money.

And that's also a great point that the mitigation won't work anyway if she's not going to admit to any wrongdoing. The only way I could see that is if they are going to say she's so far gone she can't admit to doing anything wrong. I do wonder if they are going to go the mercy killing angle as she suggested in her jailhouse letters. Not that that would be believable, but other mothers who have killed their children have used that and got less of a sentence.

But still, even mercy killing doesn't get past the duct tape and blood money. I wonder if the defense knows it's not going to get past that either, and wants to keep their mitigation a secret for an AHA moment for the jurors to jolt them into feeling sorry for Casey. I personally don't think it will work, but the only way they could possibly get past the duct tape and blood money is to have something so dramatic and so shocking the jury manages to forget about those things (which I don't think can possibly happen).

Really makes me wonder what the defense is up to, and I don't blame the state for asking to know about it. I think they have had it with defense surprises. I'm just ready for the whiny, kindergarten playground answer to this motion - "But but but judge, that's not FAIR! We don't WANNA tell the state our mitigating strategy!" *temper tantrum ensues*

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't know all of the legalities behind the mitigating factor, BUT IMO K did benefit financially from the death of Caylee in the form of over 200K. On another note I think the defense is going to use KC's "seizures" somewhere in all of this.

Do you think they will be able to do that without medical documentation? From what I understand the only time ICA experienced a "seizure" and went to the emergency dept of a nearby hospital, she got a NYD without a confirmation she actually had a seizure.

I wonder if she is actually on anti-seizure meds in prison? If she is actually having seizures, she will be on meds and it will be documented.

 

[logicalgirl]

ITA. I just can't see the jury getting the duct tape and the blood money. Nothing on this earth can excuse putting duct tape over your own child's mouth, then profiting off of that death to fund your own defense. I don't care how bad of a life she had, that oh poor me act will do NOTHING to absolve her or make anyone feel sorry for her.

In fact, if I were the prosecution, that's all I'd say - duct tape and blood money, folks. No matter what you hear, remember duct tape and blood money.

And that's also a great point that the mitigation won't work anyway if she's not going to admit to any wrongdoing. The only way I could see that is if they are going to say she's so far gone she can't admit to doing anything wrong. I do wonder if they are going to go the mercy killing angle as she suggested in her jailhouse letters. Not that that would be believable, but other mothers who have killed their children have used that and got less of a sentence.

But still, even mercy killing doesn't get past the duct tape and blood money. I wonder if the defense knows it's not going to get past that either, and wants to keep their mitigation a secret for an AHA moment for the jurors to jolt them into feeling sorry for Casey. I personally don't think it will work, but the only way they could possibly get past the duct tape and blood money is to have something so dramatic and so shocking the jury manages to forget about those things (which I don't think can possibly happen).

Really makes me wonder what the defense is up to, and I don't blame the state for asking to know about it. I think they have had it with defense surprises. I'm just ready for the whiny, kindergarten playground answer to this motion - "But but but judge, that's not FAIR! We don't WANNA tell the state our mitigating strategy!" *temper tantrum ensues*

Honestly, I just don't know what kind of mitigating factors the Defense is going to come up with. If you look at what we now know about Casey's background, then we can say sure - her parents a kind of off the wall, and yes, her mother is over controlling. But how would you compare Maya's background and Casey's? Seriously? The defense is going to have to come up with more than wah wah wah to dent a jury.
To me at least, mitigating factors are a really horrendous childhood. Incest (documented!), beatings (documented) neglect, abandonment, drug use in the home, filthy living conditions, constant physical confrontations between parents resulting in injury, drunkenness, well you get the kind of picture I'm trying to paint.

Ms Barrett had really be doing some very serious and deep digging underneath the family rocks.

As a matter of fact, let me give you an example of mitigating factors since it is late and I'm like a old wet hen about this subject.

My uncle shot my grandfather because he was a drunk who beat his wife and children. My grandmother caused the death of her youngest child because he was (oh lord what is the pc term for retarded these days) incapable of caring for himself and then committed suicide.
My father died when I was five and my mother was bi-polar and was committed in and out for years. I was a single parent who raised two children. I had my first child before I turned 18.

Those are mitigating factors!

 

[Aedrys]

Honestly, I just don't know what kind of mitigating factors the Defense is going to come up with. If you look at what we now know about Casey's background, then we can say sure - her parents a kind of off the wall, and yes, her mother is over controlling. But how would you compare Maya's background and Casey's? Seriously? The defense is going to have to come up with more than wah wah wah to dent a jury.
To me at least, mitigating factors are a really horrendous childhood. Incest (documented!), beatings (documented) neglect, abandonment, drug use in the home, filthy living conditions, constant physical confrontations between parents resulting in injury, drunkenness, well you get the kind of picture I'm trying to paint.

Ms Barrett had really be doing some very serious and deep digging underneath the family rocks.

As a matter of fact, let me give you an example of mitigating factors since it is late and I'm like a old wet hen about this subject.

My uncle shot my grandfather because he was a drunk who beat his wife and children. My grandmother caused the death of her youngest child because he was (oh lord what is the pc term for retarded these days) incapable of caring for himself and then committed suicide.
My father died when I was five and my mother was bi-polar and was committed in and out for years. I was a single parent who raised two children. I had my first child before I turned 18.

Those are mitigating factors!

That might be true, but there are also people that have had similar things happen to them, and then didn't duct tape their child, throw them away like trash, and then profit off of the lie of them being kidnapped. Just because you had the crappiest childhood on the planet doesn't automatically make it okay for you to carry out a horrendous murder.

 

[logicalgirl]

That might be true, but there are also people that have had similar things happen to them, and then didn't duct tape their child, throw them away like trash, and then profit off of the lie of them being kidnapped. Just because you had the crappiest childhood on the planet doesn't automatically make it okay for you to carry out a horrendous murder.

But that is exactly what I am saying!

The only thing I have ever been "charged" with in a life time are a couple of speeding tickets and a few overdue parking tickets.

What I'm saying is if there are real and serious documented mitigating factors, it may be the difference between life or death. I don't think Casey has any mitigating factors that are beyond wah wah wah!- my childhood was not a Norman Rockwell picture. For me that is just not enough.

 

[Aedrys]

But that is exactly what I am saying!

The only thing I have ever been "charged" with in a life time are a couple of speeding tickets and a few overdue parking tickets.

What I'm saying is if there are real and serious documented mitigating factors, it may be the difference between life or death. I don't think Casey has any mitigating factors that are beyond wah wah wah!- my childhood was not a Norman Rockwell picture. For me that is just not enough.

Oh gosh, I am so sorry. I thought you were saying the opposite, why is why I responded the way I did. I had no idea you were really talking about yourself, God bless your soul! ITA with you all the way!

 

[logicalgirl]

Oh gosh, I am so sorry. I thought you were saying the opposite, why is why I responded the way I did. I had no idea you were really talking about yourself, God bless your soul! ITA with you all the way!

LOL - I was still scratching my head going :waitasec: Huh? I WAS talking about myself pointing out what could be considered to be mitigating factors and if God Forbid, I should ever commit a crime - I'm not even going to - shudder - say a crime like ICA has been accused, then perhaps the factors I listed may save me from the death penalty and I may be given LWOP instead.
By comparison, will the mitigation specialist really be able to come up with anything that could actually be considered mitigating compared to others who have had problematic heritages or childhoods that go before a judge and jury these days?

 

[TrY]

If the ZFG civil lawsuit really does go to trial before Casey's murder case, maybe GA, CA, and LA (but especially CA given her temper) will be such poor witnesses that it may not be so hard for the defense in Casey's criminal murder trial to throw them under the bus in the penalty phase if Casey is convicted of murder.

 

[zoey]

LOL - I was still scratching my head going :waitasec: Huh? I WAS talking about myself pointing out what could be considered to be mitigating factors and if God Forbid, I should ever commit a crime - I'm not even going to - shudder - say a crime like ICA has been accused, then perhaps the factors I listed may save me from the death penalty and I may be given LWOP instead.
By comparison, will the mitigation specialist really be able to come up with anything that could actually be considered mitigating compared to others who have had problematic heritages or childhoods that go before a judge and jury these days?

I really objected to the way jb talked of how close her and kc were..(and of course he had to add himself in the mix)---It made it seem that they were bff's instead of mitigating the case....Thru out this whole thing the defense has played like they are friends and this is just a walk in the park...I don't get it!!!! I don't think she had it all that bad----If she didn't want Caylee she should have put her up for adoption....It just annoys me when they go on and on about how hard it is for kc--how alone she is....WHAT ABOUT CAYLEE????? :furious::banghead:

I do think the mitigation specialist is also digging the tracks for the train that will soon depart and land in Anthonyville....anytime now.....

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Forgive me, as I haven't read this entire thread yet, but wanted to ask, has there been a case where the defendant was found guilty, but during the penalty phase the defense continued the argument of innocence because the client WAS innocent and wrongly found? Or would it always have to be accepted once the jury rules?

 

[zoey]

Forgive me, as I haven't read this entire thread yet, but wanted to ask, has there been a case where the defendant was found guilty, but during the penalty phase the defense continued the argument of innocence because the client WAS innocent and wrongly found? Or would it always have to be accepted once the jury rules?

Not that I know this answer one way or another but alot of defendents will say that they are innocent at the end of trial and that the jury didn't get it....think Scott Peterson.....Mark G I believe is still denfending him for the appeal process...they are still on that soddi defense...

 

[Gnatcatcher]

About the blood money portion of the possible aggravated circumstances, I don't know how they would word that. Casey didn't kill Caylee for money, she just happened to fall backwards into money afterwards. It wasn't done specifically for gain. Casey never intended anyone to find out about it - EVER - so where would the intent for gain be?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Mitigating factors allowed in Florida:

The mitigating circumstances that can apply in any given first degree murder case are those set forth in Florida Statute § 921.141(6):

1. § 921.141(6)(a): The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal history.

2. § 921.141(6)(b): The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

3. § 921.141(6)(c): The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act.

4. § 921.141(6)(d): The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor.

5. § 921.141(6)(e): The defendant acted under extreme duress or under- the substantial domination of another person.

6. § 921.141(6)(f): The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law were substantially impaired.

7. § 921.141(6)(g): The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

8. § 921.141(6)(h): The existence of any other factors in the defendant’s background that would mitigate against imposition of a death sentence.

http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/in-depth-look-death-in-florida-2/

There's also a brief explanation of the process in that same article.

I believe Inmate Anthony has to let go of the SODDI theory and take responsbility for her actions. The ones I've bolded are what I feel pertains to Inmate Anthony and the why's of Caylee's demise..

Somehow I feel, when Inmate Anthony is found guilty, they may not put a woman this young to death...I know Florida has no qualms about a DP sentence for they carry out many. I believe it would be in Inmate Anthony's best interest to plead guilty and beg for mercy, leniency at sentencing...that, IMO is the only way to go for everything I've read so far, has her name written all over it..JMHO

I too feel like she had a psychotic break of sorts, disassociated herself from Caylee long before, jealousy, rage from an immature adult...who longed for freedom from parental incumbrances. She just wasn't ready to be a mom..

CA striving for perfection, domination, control, verbal/physical abuse, may help others see the stress of wanting to keep up apprearances, the struggle between mom and grandma for Caylee's love, CA taking the role as mother put Inmate Anthony in this position of madness. JMHO

I am still dying to see how the defense defends their client, if there are compelling reasons, as Baez had indicated early on..:angel:

Justice for Caylee

 

[Macushla]

Does anyone know if CM used a mitigation specialist for his client during the Serrano (I think that is how it was spelled) trial? If he did, what mitigating factors were brought up? I know he came on board late and AL is the one who brought in Barrett, I am just wondering if this is a defense strategy that CM agrees with? There does seem to be disagreement within the defense on a couple of things and I was wondering if this was another area of contention?

ETA: Interesting, here are the mitigating factors argued at Serrano's trial:

http://www.theledger.com/assets/pdf/court/serrano.pdf

Pages 4 and 5. Similar to what will probably be used with KC. Well so much for me thinking CM might not agree about mitigating factors!

ETA Again : Sorry to re edit, but if you continue to read this sentencing order under mitigating factors, they get to non statutory factors. These are the ones that are going to hurt KC - some of the ones listed are good school performance, no history of drugs or alcohol, good social history, remorse, employment history. Oh I can't WAIT to hear the defense try to spin these factors!

 

[debbie0604]

Do you think they will be able to do that without medical documentation? From what I understand the only time ICA experienced a "seizure" and went to the emergency dept of a nearby hospital, she got a NYD without a confirmation she actually had a seizure.

I wonder if she is actually on anti-seizure meds in prison? If she is actually having seizures, she will be on meds and it will be documented.

Exactly.... and IMO if she ever did have seizures previously prior to incarceration, and had been treated, it would/should have been documented... because if I am correct about this...when someone actually has seizures don't they lose their driver's license for six months until they are seizure free (for six months)? Or let me phrase it this way... aren't they suppose to not drive until seizure free for six months, and this would be documented in their medical chart by the physician who would be treating them and titrating their medication for seizures? (just sayin..) JMO :waitasec: