Possible Mitigation Argument: Media's Effect on Case

Status
Not open for further replies.

sleutherontheside

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
9,874
Reaction score
-2
I wanted to explore mitigation arguments. As they were jumbled all together JBean said I should break them up into specific mitigating factors to discuss.

Here is a very informative article discussing the effect of the media in DP mitigation. Page 5 covers this specifically.
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1440.pdf

I now ask myself.......is this why JB opposed the gag order??
 
That was one of his big 1st mistakes. If gag were in place, we would not know a smidgen and would just sit in silence until trial. JB has never executed a DP case.

ETA: He had his own agenda, news was out, he got his face, voice, and computer out there, just as many others are trying to tag on. He got face time. What he really gets is no new clients. I don't know what kind of lawyer he is, but he does not know much about DP cases, or even simple murder cases. The new team has to do damage control, and that has been attempted many times.

Media effect on case just equals the new and tried and true venue. (As JB slaps side of head and says "DOH!")
 
Just a few excerpts to support this theory...

Although Americans are now given unprecedented access to news and breaking stories, it is difficult to say if the reporting is unbiased and
unembellished. Because of its strict competition in the economic market, news companies must be able to successfully sell their stories.



By using the previous study offered by Berrington and Honkatukia (2002) as a guide, the way in which the American media chose to portray the cases of Andrea Yates and Aileen Wuornos while referencing the results of their
sentences as a strong mode of comparison will be studied. Research evidence shows that that there is anobservable connection between the perceptions that the general public holds with that of what legal decision-makers
believe. This tie can be further developed to even support the claim that the formal processing of offenders is a reflection of public perceptions of crimes and criminals (Phillips et al., 1976:1).
 
IMHO- Say what you will about the media, it doesn't change the facts-

The media was not therre when KC alledgedly murdered her child.
The media was not there when KC dumped her child in the woods, to decompose all alone.
The media was not there when KC dumped her car, and lied about it having dead squirrels under it.
The media was not there when KC was hiding out where very few people knew where she was.
The media was not there when KC went from group to group of her (friends) that one group didn't always know about the other group/s.
The media was not there when KC made up the lie about having a nanny(which she couldn't even afford a nanny if she wanted one)
The media was not there when KC was stealing money and cashing other people's checks.
Get the picture- etc.etc.etc.

So is it fair to blame the media because the truth came out and the media did what it's paid to do by reporting it?
Is it fair to blame the media because this family keeps changing their stories?
Is it fair to blame the media when the family refuses to answer legit questions, and not just what the family wants to talk about?
Is it fair to blame the media just because the family is seeking and willingly accepting money from some media and not talking to those who refuse to pay them money?

There only certain people who cane be blamed for the media's deep involvement in this case- KC- for creating the situation - The parents- for becoming addicted to the attention- good or bad- but ever ready to blame everyone except the culprit. The defense team - for craving and creating a media circus because they would not go along with the prosecutors with a gag order -since day one.

Again- the media is not perfect- but- they did not kill anyone- they did not cover up a crime- no cover for the murderer- no falsely accuse the innocent- nor accept money -
The media only did what the media does in any news story- report whatever is going on-
So why should this case be any different than any other? We are not talking about celebraties, even if some think they are-but- even celebraties don't always get a break no matter how much money they actually do have.

The public and the media don't give two cents about KC nor her family-
It's only about Caylee- and how not only a mother who is accused of killing her little child and be so callous about it- but the family not only supporting the accused murderer, but appearing to assist in covering it up and lying and twisting the story over and over to aid the murderer.
This is the real story- the dysfunction of an alledged murderer and her family. It is beyond belief and anything acceptable in the human society.
The media is only reporting the going ons, they are not making it up.
The day KC committed her first crime, and the day CA called 911, it was no longer a private family matter- it was no longer in theirs to control- it became public information, and a problem for society as well. Therefore, they invited the media and the public into their home, the media and the public did not come knocking at their door asking to become invovled.
This country is based on freedom of the press, and freedom of speech- and NOT just what one person or a family thinks it should be- so give the media a break on this one-
Enough innocent people have already been blamed-
 
IMHO- Say what you will about the media, it doesn't change the facts-

The media was not therre when KC alledgedly murdered her child.
The media was not there when KC dumped her child in the woods, to decompose all alone.
The media was not there when KC dumped her car, and lied about it having dead squirrels under it.
The media was not there when KC was hiding out where very few people knew where she was.
The media was not there when KC went from group to group of her (friends) that one group didn't always know about the other group/s.
The media was not there when KC made up the lie about having a nanny(which she couldn't even afford a nanny if she wanted one)
The media was not there when KC was stealing money and cashing other people's checks.
Get the picture- etc.etc.etc.

So is it fair to blame the media because the truth came out and the media did what it's paid to do by reporting it?
Is it fair to blame the media because this family keeps changing their stories?
Is it fair to blame the media when the family refuses to answer legit questions, and not just what the family wants to talk about?
Is it fair to blame the media just because the family is seeking and willingly accepting money from some media and not talking to those who refuse to pay them money?

There only certain people who cane be blamed for the media's deep involvement in this case- KC- for creating the situation - The parents- for becoming addicted to the attention- good or bad- but ever ready to blame everyone except the culprit. The defense team - for craving and creating a media circus because they would not go along with the prosecutors with a gag order -since day one.

Again- the media is not perfect- but- they did not kill anyone- they did not cover up a crime- no cover for the murderer- no falsely accuse the innocent- nor accept money -
The media only did what the media does in any news story- report whatever is going on-
So why should this case be any different than any other? We are not talking about celebraties, even if some think they are-but- even celebraties don't always get a break no matter how much money they actually do have.

The public and the media don't give two cents about KC nor her family-
It's only about Caylee- and how not only a mother who is accused of killing her little child and be so callous about it- but the family not only supporting the accused murderer, but appearing to assist in covering it up and lying and twisting the story over and over to aid the murderer.
This is the real story- the dysfunction of an alledged murderer and her family. It is beyond belief and anything acceptable in the human society.
The media is only reporting the going ons, they are not making it up.
The day KC committed her first crime, and the day CA called 911, it was no longer a private family matter- it was no longer in theirs to control- it became public information, and a problem for society as well. Therefore, they invited the media and the public into their home, the media and the public did not come knocking at their door asking to become invovled.
This country is based on freedom of the press, and freedom of speech- and NOT just what one person or a family thinks it should be- so give the media a break on this one-Enough innocent people have already been blamed-


I agree with what you stated above. My intent with this topic is to demonstrate that media impact has been used in DP mitigation and may be used in KC's case. I believe that AL could use media impact to show the jury that their client has already been judged and perhaps more harshly because of the coverage. I am not blaming media.......it does not change the crime......it does impact trial.
 
Not seeing how the media could be a factor when it comes to punishment. It's not an excuse for what she did. It came along after the fact and broadcasted the events as they knew them to be.
 
I agree with what you stated above. My intent with this topic is to demonstrate that media impact has been used in DP mitigation and may be used in KC's case. I believe that AL could use media impact to show the jury that their client has already been judged and perhaps more harshly because of the coverage. I am not blaming media.......it does not change the crime......it does impact trial.

I understand where your going with it. However, if AL is able to pull that off, then the SA isn't doing their redirecting job very well. That would only work, if the SA isn't expecting that sort of attack.

At this point, I think they are clued in to expect something like that. Well enough that they would be able to point out that the media is just reporting the events and that isn't 'punishment.' And that even if it was considered punishment, FL law doesn't list it as a possible punishment. Their only 2 choices would be LWOP or DP.. media harrasment isn't listed.
 
I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
JMHO
 
I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
JMHO

BBM ITA
She could always argue that she was trying to combat the negative press. But the big bad media already tried the case and her client should be spared the DP. I don't know that she will present it....but others have. In this case I think it's all going to be offered.
 
I will agree they will certainly use the media coverage as a mitigating factor but I say - the media will have had nothing whatever to do with the verdict. my sense told me the day I heard "...31 days before florida toddler was reported missing" and the day I heard the recording of the "waste...huge waste" phone call that KC murdered her daughter. not a single lick I have heard since then has served to change my mind.

so they can mitigate til they are blue in the effing face and blame the media that we ever heard the name of Casey Anthony - but the real reason we ever heard the name is due the the actions CASEY ANTHONY chose to take on the 16th of June, 2008.
 
IMO the only effect the media attention to this case will be a successful change in venue for the murder trial.
 
I don't think the defense can say one word about the media as they and the Anthony's have been the ones going to the media to spew their nonsense. This is exactly why I don't think they should be allowed a change of venue, either. If any one of them knew how to say the words "no comment" as the state and LE have done, we wouldn't have this media circus. I hope if and when the defense brings up anything about the so-called "negative" media attention, Strickland laughs in their faces.
 
I will agree they will certainly use the media coverage as a mitigating factor but I say - the media will have had nothing whatever to do with the verdict. my sense told me the day I heard "...31 days before florida toddler was reported missing" and the day I heard the recording of the "waste...huge waste" phone call that KC murdered her daughter. not a single lick I have heard since then has served to change my mind.

so they can mitigate til they are blue in the effing face and blame the media that we ever heard the name of Casey Anthony - but the real reason we ever heard the name is due the the actions CASEY ANTHONY chose to take on the 16th of June, 2008.

Okay, I am long-winded- this is precisely the short version of what I was trying to say. Thanks !!!!

You can't change the truth!
 
I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
JMHO

:Jumpie: Well said, ITA. I fully expect the defense to use this as a mitigating factor, including citing the play "Tot Mom." I hope the SA has a list of every single media appearance the A's, JB, LKB et al have made so they can throw it back in their faces.
 
Hmmm - media's effect on case as a possible mitigation argument...

NOPE - DON'T THINK SO - not that the defense won't try and it wouldn't be the first inappropriate argument they tried to make - but without getting into all the absurd moves of the defense in this case - let's just remember what a mitigating factor is in regards to the law - it is information or evidence regarding the defendant or circumstances of the crime that might result in a lighter sentence or even a reduced charge

Mitigating factors regarding the defendant or circumstances of the crime have nothing to do with the media reports after the crime. Mitigating factors are things like a history of mental illness or a crime committed in the heat of passion or such a horribly abusive upbringing that might give a jury a reason to convict of a lesser crime or give a lighter sentence. They can even be things like remorse and attempts to atone or backgrounds of good deeds or character or anything that might make the defendant look like they deserve mercy and compassion.

While the defense may be able to use the argument of inability to get a fair trial due to media coverage as an argument for appeal, it is not a mitigating factor that should be considered by the jury regarding whether or not to convict and of what charge to convict and of what sentence to pass. The media coverage had nothing to do with what happened to little Caylee as the media wasn't even aware of it until 31 days later so there is nothing they have or can say or do that is a mitigating factor.

KC's actions since Caylee's death on the other hand could be considered as aggrevating factors such as the hideous way she disposed of Caylee's body or the calloused way she told her friends that Caylee was fine and with the nanny while she went out on with her life including the parties, the clubs, the thefts, & the lies.

Mitigating and aggrevating factors may not be direct opposites but they are close to being that. A mitigating factor is something the jury considers when decidiing whether to convict of lesser charges or pass minimum sentences while an aggreavting factor is something considered when deciding to convict of the most serious charges or to pass the maximum sentences. Both must be considered and I'm sure in this trial both will be presented and the jury is likely to come in somewhere between the minimums and maximums as opposed to either extreme.

But the media coverage SHOULD NOT be a part of their consideration as it is neither a mitigating nor aggrevating factor regarding either the defendant or the crime.

(And that's all I got to say about that.)
 
You are all right as far as the many standing laws. Media effect can only grant a change of venue. It is not a mitigating factor. That is just JB trying to slide through something he knew nothing of. He was the one that demanded, and, had media representatives stand in Court, that media coverage remain. GIANT NO NO. The new team is taking care of what they can, as they can. Remember, the latest t.v. outings are damage control. The closer the trial gets, the less we "should" hear. Judge S ruled DP stays, defense will scramble more so to "save face" for all of their pro bono work, they have to really dig here. It is a plain and clear case, everyone should be quiet and work on burden of proof.
 
I wanted to explore mitigation arguments. As they were jumbled all together JBean said I should break them up into specific mitigating factors to discuss.

Here is a very informative article discussing the effect of the media in DP mitigation. Page 5 covers this specifically.
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1440.pdf

I now ask myself.......is this why JB opposed the gag order??

From the above article:

"...As soon as the crime is committed, the media immediately acts on the public’s sense of anomie (confused state of mind) and classifies the female murderer as either mad or bad. A mad portrayal in the media focuses on the state of mind of the criminal rather than her actions. This creates a feeling of sadness in the public associated with the helpless and insane view of the female. This woman is given the benefit of the doubt and her past experiences are highlighted. While her actions are frowned upon, her state of mind is pitied more readily than that of the bad woman. When the media portrays a woman as bad, the coverage is often exceptionally harsh. This woman is deemed to be evil. Her actions were the opposite of what is expected of her as a female and she must be a manipulative and evil person. This type of female killer is devoid of excuses in the eyes of the media and she deserves punishment to the fullest extent of the law (Berrington & Honkatukia, 2002:50)."

I have to wonder about the "mad or bad" scenario. KC was definitely labeled as "bad" from the start and this article shows the DT need to reclassify her as "sad" in order to get a reduced sentence. I see the sexual abuse and dysfunctional family as the instigators for the "sad". Excellent article...thanks for posting it.
 
Well, the DT are the ones going on every show - Larry King, Morning Shows, Geraldo, 48 hours - they're trying to cheat and sway public opinion. Have not seen the SA on any such show. As HHJP says - we have a first amendment! lol
 
I wanted to explore mitigation arguments. As they were jumbled all together JBean said I should break them up into specific mitigating factors to discuss.

Here is a very informative article discussing the effect of the media in DP mitigation. Page 5 covers this specifically.
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1440.pdf

I now ask myself.......is this why JB opposed the gag order??

Interesting study. Although Casey doesn't belong to the particular subset referenced, the theory of the stereotyping of female roles and societal expectations figures prominently in the media's approach.

Do you think that JB was aware of this study? I thought that he opposed the gag order around the time that she was charged and re-incarcerated.

The media never latched onto the suggested "mad" portrayal of her though it has been an ongoing concern here on WS for some during the past 3 years. Thank you for sharing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
2,266
Total visitors
2,463

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,266
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top