Murder 1 or a Lesser Included Offense?

[LambChop]

Yep and MOTHER'S who's children meet with accidents, call 911. They don't reach for duct tape and then go on a date. I also don' t believe she craved her mother's approval or feared her. Her long term abuse of Cindy's bank accounts, free time and her failure to find work show a totally selfish and single minded individual. MOO

Nor do they rent movies about duct taping victims on the very night their child goes missing.

 

[krisskross]

Nor do they rent movies about duct taping victims on the very night their child goes missing.

Yep and I bet she never flinched. Tony's testimony will be rivetting. They better give her a gross of legal pads to hide behind. I am dying to read this 75 page computer report by Sandra Cawn. Apart from the one tree hill coinky dinky nanny kidnap story, I want to know what she deleted around July 3rd.

We know per George she deleted many Caylee pictures. :maddening:

I want to think these seasoned prosecutors requested the DP with more than theories.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I will be happy if Casey got 30 years in prison. If she had 'confessed' early on to an accident that spiraled out of control with an insane cover-up she may have gotten much less. 30 years sounds like a death sentence to me. I value my freedom too much and love being able to do and go where ever I want when ever I want. I think going to prison would be the most horrible way to spend 1 year much less 30. 30 years for Casey to look at the walls and remember why she's there.

I personally would not be okay with Casey only getting 30 years. Casey would be 52 years old when she gets out of prison (time served/85% of sentence). Cindy Anthony is 52 years old right now. If Cindy Anthony can act the way she does, and do the things she has done at her age... times that by 1000 for Casey Anthony.

People would be horrified if a child molester got out of jail at 52-years old because they are still capable of reoffending. The same thing applies for Casey Anthony, imo. She is a murderer and I think she is very capable of murdering again... even at 52-years-old.

ETA: Add another 20-30 years, making her 72-82 years old and I would be okay with that.

 

[AZlawyer]

Someone please straighten me out on this, because I have never been completely sure of this, and my memory is not what it used to be.

I thought that in Florida one of the situations for the Death Penalty is Felony Murder (which would cover either of what we elsewhere think of as 1st or 2nd degree murder) with the aggravating factor of the victim being the minor child of the defendant? I didn't think that premeditation was an absolute requirement in this case? It would be nice to have, and it is something that the jury will look at, but I didn't think that it was an absolute? The child died by a deliberate and violent act at the mothers hands, not one of negligence, then it can be a DP case. Whereas manslaughter is more of a negligent act. I think the main arguments will be cause of death and not premeditation.

Or am I completely wrong or confused about this as usual?:waitasec::waitasec:

IIRC aggravated child abuse resulting in death would be felony murder in Florida (and would qualify for the death penalty). There can be a jury instruction on felony murder as long as the felony (agg child abuse) and the murder are both on the charge sheet (which they are).

 

[Just Jayla]

IIRC aggravated child abuse resulting in death would be felony murder in Florida (and would qualify for the death penalty). There can be a jury instruction on felony murder as long as the felony (agg child abuse) and the murder are both on the charge sheet (which they are).

AZ, in reference to my question above (originally written to RH but open for discussion by everyone!!)...which of those items, if any, are hearsay?

 

[strach304]

KA loved heart stickers and stickers period she liked to make things with them. IMO the heart sticker wasnt put there because of guilt and it was no accident. IMO KA put it there has her calling card so to speak. KA knew CA would know the meaning of the sticker.Poor Caylee didnt have a chance. Also IMO KA is gonna get LWOP and thats as light of a sentence she is gonna get :twocents: Only comfort Im gonna get for that she is gonna be in for a big surprise they dont like baby killers in the pokey :crazy:

Casey used to crop in a heart on her MS and FB photos. There was one in particular of Caylee and Cindy that caught my attention. I thought at the time maybe it was a message to Cindy.

 

[AZlawyer]

(Brought over from legal thread as surely this will elicit further discussion)

Ah, after all of my rambling, you have addressed my previous question-So, now I can ask:

We'll assume, probably correctly, that a plea is not on the table.

Let's also assume you have sufficiently attacked any evidence of premeditation and provided sufficient reasonable doubt there-How do you proceed to show that Caylee was not killed in the commission of aggravated child abuse? Specifically, how does the defense address the placement of a rare type of duct tape, and more specifically the placement of that duct tape in a toddler's hair?

Do you also/how do you seek to eliminate:
-KC's failure to provide prenatal care for Caylee?
-KC's attempts to adopt Caylee to Kio?
-KC's history of leaving her child in her mother's care and failing to provide for her financially, to the point that CA, in the 1st 911 call, threatened to take custody?
-KC's statements to RyanP (IIRC) that Caylee was a hinderence to KC's lifestyle?
-Maria Kissh's statements that KC left Caylee unsupervised in a dangerous situation?
-MichelleM's concern that KC might hurt Caylee, based on things KC said to Michelle about her mental state?

I know these answers probably seem simple, in that they can be countered with testimony that KC was a good mother, CA was controlling, Michelle is not a doctor, etc...Do you try to shoot these items down within the trial itself, or does jury instruction become a stronger tool?

AZ, in reference to my question above (originally written to RH but open for discussion by everyone!!)...which of those items, if any, are hearsay?

None of those items are inadmissible hearsay, but they might be inadmissible for some other reason. For example, Michelle's personal feeling that KC was capable of hurting Caylee (I don't remember this interview, so I'm just going by your comment above) is irrelevant IMO.

 

[Just Jayla]

Bump, will also quote AZ's theory here momentarily...

 

[Just Jayla]

Good question. I think it's just done by court order--i.e., the judge orders the media not to show jurors' faces.

Most courthouses nowadays have secret exits for judges to get to their cars. I bet they could use the same exits for sequestered jurors.

I don't know of any laws preventing jurors from discussing their deliberations post-trial.



Zilch? No way. There is still a possibility of a defense win here. If there weren't, I wouldn't be so interested.

With that said, none of the things you listed are true.



I suppose I would go for the theory that Caylee died in a terrible accident, not caused by any culpable negligence on Casey's part, following which Casey engaged in an idiotic cover-up attempt out of mortal terror of her mother, during which she was able to present a "happy face" to the world by suppressing her emotions deep into her subconscious, a symptom of her mental illness caused by the emotional and sexual abuse by her parents and brother. The "Bella Vita" tattoo was to help her remember the beautiful life of her baby, because the emotional suppression caused by her mental illness scared even her. Caylee was the only thing in Casey's life that ever broke through the mental illness and brought out normal emotions in her, so after Caylee was gone Casey's illness got even worse, explaining her horrifically ice-cold statements to police.

If they go for the "Zanny did it" theory, I think they're sunk.

Here ya's go....I think this should be easy to work on for us, but I was originally trying to attack this using only what we know will be or should be allowed and presented to the jury-Unfortunately, that eliminates some of the things we know here on WS.

My first thought was MichelleM, Kio, Maira Kissh, and RyanP-All stating at one time or another that KC either was loca before all of this, KC never wanted Caylee, or KC felt Caylee was a hinderance.

We also assume that the computer searches are allowed in and shown to be KC premeditating, but RH stated he does not believe premeditation can be weighed heavily enough by the jury (that was my take on what he wrote, and I also asked him how heavily jury instruction will be in eliminating some of the premeditation stuff-Will they be told to ignore it due to objections, etc.)

 

[21merc7]

Ummm, no jury will think duct tape is an accident. Nor chloroform if that is admitted.

 

[AZlawyer]

Ummm, no jury will think duct tape is an accident. Nor chloroform if that is admitted.

The duct tape could just be part of the cover-up.

But the chloroform is a different story. That would definitely kerflunkel my defense theory!!

 

[Just Jayla]

The duct tape could just be part of the cover-up.

But the chloroform is a different story. That would definitely kerflunkel my defense theory!!

Yes, it would be a debunker-BUT! Even if the air/carpet samples play out in court as we would like, my opinion is that the chloroform might be easier to contort into something that inserts reasonable doubt (remember how DNA played out in the OJ case?) than the duct tape. As a juror I would ask: If she were only placing the duct tape in order to stage a kidnapping scenario after an accident occurred, why did she not bind Caylee's hands and feet as well?

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, it would be a debunker-BUT! Even if the air/carpet samples play out in court as we would like, my opinion is that the chloroform might be easier to contort into something that inserts reasonable doubt (remember how DNA played out in the OJ case?) than the duct tape. As a juror I would ask: If she were only placing the duct tape in order to stage a kidnapping scenario after an accident occurred, why did she not bind Caylee's hands and feet as well?

Remember that one long piece of Henkel duct tape found at the scene...

 

[Tiki]

I think the elements of manslaughter are there, as well as aggravated child abuse. I think she could be convicted on those 2 charges as opposed to Murder 1. Culpable negligence is more than just an accident. the definition is below.

I have never thought there was enough evidence to convict on Murder 1, but did think they could convict on these other 2 charges.

But with that said, I have not followed any of the latest information and do not know if I would see a murder 1 conviction more clearly now. But I am only trying to answer your question as to how she could be convicted on lesser charges. I think they can easily prove the elements below beyond reasonable doubt.

.7 MANSLAUGHTER [section] 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.

2. a. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously committed an act that caused the death of (victim).

b. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously procured an act that resulted in the death of (victim).

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death.

Culpable Negligence - culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing careless disregard for the safety and welfare of another person or persons.

AND
Aggravated Manslaughter

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...3ESection%2007

Aggravated Child Abuse:

2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

It looks like maybe the DT is going to try to say Caylee's death was an accident and wants to bring in a Dr. to testify to her "state of mind".

What kind of accident that could happen to a 2 year old that wouldn't be "culpable negligence" and therefore "Aggravated child abuse"?

What could happen to a toddler to cause her death if her mother/caretaker was not neglecting her?

Could they use the drowning in the pool excuse, say if they were sleeping and Caylee somehow got into the pool? or got into medications or fell off something? With only skeletal remains, they could say almost anything as long as it didn't involve injury to bones.

I'm trying to understand why the 31 days even if she was afraid of CA, if it really was an accident that was not ICA's fault in any way.

And didn't ICA already try that with the kidnapping story. Is it possible they are going to try to stick with that, with all the evidence in ICA's car?

.

 

[Just Jayla]

Remember that one long piece of Henkel duct tape found at the scene...

I do indeed-so, if they go with this, that means that AndreaL's assertion that the state cannot link the duct tape to the A house goes out the window. It also means that the defense would have to assert that KC's fingerprints either dissipated and/or she wore gloves, and that the body was absolutely placed there months before discovery.

So my question is, if they go this route with the jury, will the jury have knowledge that the defense intially tried to hide/explain away all of these things, or can they only consider the testimony and submitted evidence? In other words, can the state bring up in opening or closing arguments, that the defense has totally changed their tactic?

 

[AZlawyer]

I do indeed-so, if they go with this, that means that AndreaL's assertion that the state cannot link the duct tape to the A house goes out the window. It also means that the defense would have to assert that KC's fingerprints either dissipated and/or she wore gloves, and that the body was absolutely placed there months before discovery.

So my question is, if they go this route with the jury, will the jury have knowledge that the defense intially tried to hide/explain away all of these things, or can they only consider the testimony and submitted evidence? In other words, can the state bring up in opening or closing arguments, that the defense has totally changed their tactic?

The jury would not know about the defense fishing around for other theories prior to trial.

 

[Just Jayla]

The jury would not know about the defense fishing around for other theories prior to trial.

Gotcha-This would be quite a gamble for the defense, no? If they are going to say that KC did all of these things to stage a kidnapping or elude CA's wrath, don't they run the risk of the jury calling "bull pucky" on them, and then using what the defense has conceeded (such as KC wore gloves, picked up an implement and knowingly cut and placed duct tape) to confirm their suspicions of premeditation?

 

[ebedeeb]

IMHO...not enough time (or at least ineffective use of all these years/time)...not enough skill

Plausible sell to the jury otherwise

 

[AZlawyer]

Gotcha-This would be quite a gamble for the defense, no? If they are going to say that KC did all of these things to stage a kidnapping or elude CA's wrath, don't they run the risk of the jury calling "bull pucky" on them, and then using what the defense has conceeded (such as KC wore gloves, picked up an implement and knowingly cut and placed duct tape) to confirm their suspicions of premeditation?

Very true. But if I were a member of the defense team, I'd be pretty worried about floating any theory in which Casey did not dispose of the body, because most of the evidence against Casey relates to her possession/disposal of the body. If the jury thinks she disposed of the body, and your theory is inconsistent with that fact, then you've missed the chance to convince them of a theory of innocence that is consistent with the evidence.

 

[Just Jayla]

Very true. But if I were a member of the defense team, I'd be pretty worried about floating any theory in which Casey did not dispose of the body, because most of the evidence against Casey relates to her possession/disposal of the body. If the jury thinks she disposed of the body, and your theory is inconsistent with that fact, then you've missed the chance to convince them of a theory of innocence that is consistent with the evidence.

So, if we work from your theory, the ugliest of ugly coping and wrath-dodging...and we eliminate what we know of premeditation-let's say the state cannot absolutely prove the PC searches were KC or cannot link those searches solidly to the murder...I'm thinking the last greatest ace up the state's sleeve is to prove a fight on the night of the 15th.

On the computer search thread, JWG and others point out that three things occurred around the time of the PC searches- KC steals from Shirley, the computer searches happen, and KC sends a Myspace message to Lee thanking him for sticking up for her. We might conclude that there was a whopper of a fight in March 2008, too, and that KC's gutteral reaction was to off her mother. That fight comes and goes, Lee intervenes. Not that the state can prove that, but-it tells us what kind of person we are dealing with.

If somehow, someway they could pull that fight info out of Cindy re: March or July 15, or get Lee to tell them why he told the fight story to Jesse and that it really happened-Now we've got premeditation that overrides an ugly coping scenario, IMO.