Premeditated Murder #972

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
If this was not premeditated ( and I am SURE it was) then all I can say is Caylee's death by whatever means just happened to occur at a most serendipitous time for Casey- just when she wanted to be free of her the most.
 
tweety933 said:
782.04 (1)a1 is what Casey has been charged with, which uses the word premeditated design, but from what I'm understanding reading 782.04 (1)b.....it states that any of the above capital offenses can be sentenced to "DEATH". 782.04 (1) a2 (particularly h.), doesn't use the word premeditated, although it, in and of itself could also bring about a "DEATH SENTENCE".

I had previously been under the impression that only the 782.04 1a1 was the only charge that would bring about a death sentence, as that is what Casey is charged with, but the aggravated child abuse offense resulting in death can also bring about the death penalty. Is this particular offense which she hasn't been particularly charged with also included in the charge, or is it not?

In other words, premeditation is not an essential element to be sentenced to death, is it? Aggravated Child Abuse resulting in death of the victim is also a death penalty offense.
Click to expand...

Repeating see my post from the old thread, [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4280630&postcount=589]here[/ame].

lin said:
I'm trying to catch up with the thread and have noticed a couple of misunderstandings of Florida law posted. Just in case correction hasn't been made yet:

KC was indicted for 1st degree murder. Under Florida law, 2nd degree murder is a Lesser Included Offense. (LIO). Therefore, 2nd degree murder and all other LIO's have been on the table since the day KC was indicted. Please see other posts in this thread here and here for more specific information on LIO's.

Although KC was not specifically charged with Felony Murder, she may be convicted of felony murder, even though it is not a specific LIO. This is per Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976) and cited in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions. Our own AZLawyer, Themis and others have reviewed Knight and agreed that the jury may be instructed on felony murder although it is not listed in the indictment in the Legal Procedures thread, see Themis' posts here and continuing on page 27, here.

Neither felony murder nor 2nd degree murder require premeditation to be proven. However, wanted to clear up the misunderstandings of Florida law.
Click to expand...

In case you're not familiar with Knight, cited in Florida Standard Jury Instructions:

"Under Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), felony murder is included within a single indictment count of premeditated murder. Therefore, first degree felony murder should be given if requested by the state and if supported by the evidence, although it is not a lesser included offense."

So to answer your question, yes, KC may be convicted of felony murder with the aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony, even though she hasn't been specifically charged with it and yes, death is a possible penalty for a felony murder conviction.
 
ZsaZsa said:
If this was not premeditated ( and I am SURE it was) then all I can say is Caylee's death by whatever means just happened to occur at a most serendipitous time for Casey- just when she wanted to be free of her the most.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that it did not even cause her to postpone "movie night" with her current squeeze. In fact, it only helped accelerate her party mode for the next month until she was busted. She NEVER "reported her child missing" - she was forced under duress to confess to her mother that Caylee was gone.
 
Harmony2 said:
(bolded by Harmony and added red to text to reply... especially in reference to this quote from the red bolded "permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act")

I have a question considering the following scenario since placement of duct tape to prevent leakage of pool water was mentioned in the other thread.

Casey is busy texting, on the phone or computer and Caylee ventures outside to the pool and drowns. Casey finds her and pulls her out of the pool. She makes the decision not to render aid for her daughter and covers her mouth and nose to stop leakage of pool water. Since Casey is not a trained medical person (to recognize a faint heart beat or shallow breathing, etc.) and since aid may have revived her daughter, wouldn't the decision to not call 911 (sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed) and allow Caylee to die (probable result of that act) be considered premeditation?



(note: I do not believe this is what happened, just postulating this scenario...)

Thanks in advance for any replies!!
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question and I remember reading a case a while back wherein a woman was convicted of murder for not rendering aid to her aged mother. I can't remember the style of the cause off the top of my head but if it's an issue, I'm sure I could find it again. Basically, iirc, after a fight between the two, the mother fell down the stairs and died there. The case was overturned on appeal because the daughter left immediately after the fight and successfully argued she wasn't aware that her mother had fallen and the fall occurred after her departure.

And I agree with you; unless I see some evidence to suggest the pool was involved, that theory is just more smoke and mirrors. There's nothing presented so far to indicate that Caylee was anywhere near the pool on the day she died and if the new witness, JT, is found credible, everything to show Caylee wasn't even at home when she was cruelly murdered. As others have pointed out, we've also seen no evidence of traces of pool chemicals either with the remains or in the trunk, etc. etc. It was a good theory when it first went around and could have explained a lot but has been discredited by subsequent doc dumps, the new witness and the lack of any evidence to substantiate it. Lack of evidence IS evidence in certain situations, kwim?
 
I'm relieved to know NOW that premeditation does not have to be proven to give someone the needle. I'm even more relieved to know that the SA has charged Casey in the proper manner, and she will at the very least be found guilty of 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h) and be put to death due to the weight of the aggravating factors vs. the mitigating ones, per sentencing guidelines at 921.141 (5&6).
 
The biggest problem I had with a "pool accident" is that it was initially suggested by CA to KC in prison, almost tentatively, as if she was running it by her to see what she thought. GA and CA both made a big deal of telling LE and FBI their idea.

Since they have been known to manufacture information and to clean up evidence, that alone made me doubt it. Their LE and FBI interviews were in late July and early August - plenty of time to have sat up thinking ways how their daughter, who had spent several weeks in jail, could receive the minimum sentence for what she had done.

We have nothing, other than their word, that the pool ladder was even up any of those days. And frankly, I'd think that if it was, it was that KC came back for a swim while she was on a stealing food/getting clean clothes run some afternoon.

I tend to head in the opposite direction of whatever an Anthony might have to say - it's generally misdirection anyway.
 
Also regarding the pool theory.

Caylee was found with clothes. I'm not sure what the documents say on this but I'm going to assume the clothes were on Caylee at the time of death.

If Caylee were swimming she wouldn't have normal street clothes on and I seriously doubt Casey would have pulled her out of the pool then dressed her. Also if Caylee had fallen in the pool and was wearing said clothing I believe there would be evidence of such. Like elevated cholorine levels found in the clothing or discoloration associated with the pool chemicals.

Which brings me back to Harmony2's post and premeditation as a result of not rendering aid. That's just a good question and wish I knew the answer. To me it would still be murder especially given Caylee's age and her relationship to Casey.
 
tweety933 said:
782.04 (1)a1 is what Casey has been charged with, which uses the word premeditated design, but from what I'm understanding reading 782.04 (1)b.....it states that any of the above capital offenses can be sentenced to "DEATH". 782.04 (1) a2 (particularly h.), doesn't use the word premeditated, although it, in and of itself could also bring about a "DEATH SENTENCE".

I had previously been under the impression that only the 782.04 1a1 was the only charge that would bring about a death sentence, as that is what Casey is charged with, but the aggravated child abuse offense resulting in death can also bring about the death penalty. Is this particular offense which she hasn't been particularly charged with also included in the charge, or is it not?

In other words, premeditation is not an essential element to be sentenced to death, is it? Aggravated Child Abuse resulting in death of the victim is also a death penalty offense.
Click to expand...

Thread #972 and a feeling of deja vu.

I am appreciative of the above statement in bold as it reminds us that while we're debating premeditation, that is not the sole crux of the issue.

JBean, might we extend this thread out to intelligently and respectfully discuss all aspects of premeditation, or are we restricted her to discuss premeditation as it might relate to charges?

While I do personally believe that Casey commited premeditated murder, I respect that many might not agree with that sentiment.

But, I have to wonder about the additional premediation on Casey's part - regardless of the charges/laws.

I'd like to explore other aspects of Casey's premeditation, for example: I would like to think that there isn't a sole participatant in this discussion who doesn't recognize that Casey is representative of an individual who deliberately and decidedly prolonged her families' agony in looking for an 'Alive Caylee.' Willful.

Here is where we get down to the short-hairs of the discussion... I understand that it is the nature of the beast to dissect semantics whilst interpreting the language of law. I get that and I appreciate that.

I'd like to see this thread become more interesting with the inclusion of some intelligent discussion in regards to the ethics and morals of premeditation in general. The inherant issue with this intelligent debate seems to be that it is lacking in a standard of moral measure. We're all commenting on the interpretation of legal linguistics without uttering much in regards to the moral dilemas that juors will struggle with.

I'd be hard pressed to isolate a singular argument posted on the previous 971 premeditation threads that speaks to the moral/ethical issues that evolved from Casey's premeditated efforts and actions to further confuse, hurt and prolong her families' stability, if Caylee did indeed die by accidental death.

JBEAN: Might we expand this thread to include ALL instances of premedition? To inlude those that occured after Oct. 15, 2008?

I can't help but believe that some nay-sayers who appear to prioritize. identify and define the 'victim' in this case differently than some of us will step up to intelligently discuss how it appears that a loving mother premeditated to further her own families pain - on the heels of an accidental death.

Let's step aside from the legal interpretations. Even if you're convined or not, of premeditation in regards to the charges, I would think that anyone who is not morally or emotionally stunted would agree that after July 15th, Casey has demonstrated a propensity to prolong her families' agony in a premeditated manner.

It would be refreshing if we had the leaway and the ability to challenge the definition of 'victim' and 'premeditation' w/o worries of being sanctioned.

Get it, got it - we've done 971 threads about premeditation as it is applicable to the law. YMMV (Your mileage may vary.)

This thread might evolve into something extraordinary if we open it up to include discussion of ALL of Casey's premeditated acts.

I have to hope that somewhere within the most die-hard 'nay-sayers' words, there exists some abstract conception of the true definition of 'victim' - even if it transcends the much-despised laws & legalese.

Can we post to the majority? Only a slim few, lacking in the ability to disassociate this case from their own experience would step up and argue based on any evidence or law that CAYLEE was the victim - not Casey.

Can we speak up respectfullyto discuss Casey's entirely contrived, planned and plotted premeditation in regards to how she's treated her family - and her poor baby's remains?

I think it is relevant and falls well within the thread title subject.

We've dabated the laws on 971 previous threads - can we fairly open this up and ask for a tad more MORAL depth to the discussion? (It's all well and good to rehash ESTABLISHED legal precedent out the whazoo...) could we move this along to an actual intellectual discussion that includes mores - and you can bet that the jury is thinking along these lines.)

Example: IF, IF, IF Caylee's death was accidental ---> EVERY move, utterance and action/inaction on Casey's part since has been premeditated.
 
For ThoughtElf --Your award:

royalsleuth.jpg
 
tweety933 said:
I'm relieved to know NOW that premeditation does not have to be proven to give someone the needle. I'm even more relieved to know that the SA has charged Casey in the proper manner, and she will at the very least be found guilty of 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h) and be put to death due to the weight of the aggravating factors vs. the mitigating ones, per sentencing guidelines at 921.141 (5&6).
Click to expand...

ITTA. Although the thread was posed for distinguishing premeditation, it seems that lack proving it won't necessarily lessen the outcome. Of course, establishing it would put things in the express lane IYKWIM.

Unless something comes forward definitively establishing the timing (pre-vs.-post) of the placement of duct tape, or the timing (pre-vs.-post) of Caylee being placed in the trunk :cry: IMHO that leaves enough room for one juror to hold out :snooty: that Casey was bein' stoopid & selfish...not being malicious & premeditated.

So, IMHO...quoting tweety..."she will at the very least be found guilty of 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h)"
 
The 31 days says it all for me. When my baby died I was unable to leave the house for months. I carried his pictures from room to room. My body ached with physical pain from the loss. The fact that KC partied and got a tattoo claiming "beautiful life " tells me she wanted to be rid of Caylee. No accident. No scientific facts needed for me. It's going to hard for any juror not to react to the emotion of this case.
 
Three words:

Death Penalty JURY!!!


Bring it on, Casey :furious: :furious: :furious:
 
3doglady said:
The 31 days says it all for me. When my baby died I was unable to leave the house for months. I carried his pictures from room to room. My body ached with physical pain from the loss. The fact that KC partied and got a tattoo claiming "beautiful life " tells me she wanted to be rid of Caylee. No accident. No scientific facts needed for me. It's going to hard for any juror not to react to the emotion of this case.
Click to expand...

I am so sorry you lost your child.I think those that try to explain away KC's behavior have never endured the loss of a child,themselves,and may not understand the grip it has on you,not just emotionally ,but physically.Others may think they know what it would be like,but until you lose a child you don't know.
Thank you for sharing ,3doglady.
 
Premeditation, rendering aid, and the pool theory...again. Sorry it has me intrigue.

Bounced it around in my head and went to looking at the Florida statutes for murder and manslaughter.

After thinking about the scenario of Casey not rendering aid to a drowned Caylee. I got to thinking Casey knew by not calling 911 or rendering aid that Caylee would surely die. However in this scenario Casey doesn't do anything to facilitate Caylee's actual death. That got me thinking about negligent homicide because Casey would have shown culpable negligence. Now granted she knew Caylee would surely die with out aid and had adequate time to reflect on that. However she just let her die and didn't actually cause her death.

I then read the statutes for manslaughter again because I don't see where Florida has a negligent homicide statute. Honestly after reading it I think if this was the scenario (which I don't buy, by the way). That Casey could only be guilty of manslaughter. Yes she had time to reflect as is required for premed but she herself did not actually cause the death through her direct actions.

Florida gets tricky though because this would be a felony, it does involve a minor under the age of 12, and there is the special relationship between Casey and Caylee. That relationship requires Casey to render aid to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong). Then you toss in child negligence.

After thinking this all through my conclusion is, under this pool theory Casey would be guilty of Felony Murder which still holds the same sentence as Murder 1.

Now I have a headache....my last two brain cells are fighting to see who's last.
 
lin said:
Repeating see my post from the old thread, here.



In case you're not familiar with Knight, cited in Florida Standard Jury Instructions:

"Under Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), felony murder is included within a single indictment count of premeditated murder. Therefore, first degree felony murder should be given if requested by the state and if supported by the evidence, although it is not a lesser included offense."

So to answer your question, yes, KC may be convicted of felony murder with the aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony, even though she hasn't been specifically charged with it and yes, death is a possible penalty for a felony murder conviction.
Click to expand...
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!!!
 
3doglady said:
The 31 days says it all for me. When my baby died I was unable to leave the house for months. I carried his pictures from room to room. My body ached with physical pain from the loss. The fact that KC partied and got a tattoo claiming "beautiful life " tells me she wanted to be rid of Caylee. No accident. No scientific facts needed for me. It's going to hard for any juror not to react to the emotion of this case.
Click to expand...
ITA...when you lose a child you want to die.

I am so sorry for your loss...
 
tweety933 said:
I'm relieved to know NOW that premeditation does not have to be proven to give someone the needle. I'm even more relieved to know that the SA has charged Casey in the proper manner, and she will at the very least be found guilty of 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h) and be put to death due to the weight of the aggravating factors vs. the mitigating ones, per sentencing guidelines at 921.141 (5&6).
Click to expand...

Casey is not charged with murder under 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h). Thus, the jury will not be instructed to deiberate her guilt for that crime. Casey is charged with premeditated murder under 782.04 (1)(a)(1). Accordingly, the jury will be instructed to deliberate her guilt for the crime of premeditated murder.

HTH
 
Wudge said:
Casey is not charged with murder under 782.04 (1)(a)(2)(h). Thus, the jury will not be instructed to deiberate her guilt for that crime. Casey is charged with premeditated murder under 782.04 (1)(a)(1). Accordingly, the jury will be instructed to deliberate her guilt for the crime of premeditated murder.

HTH
Click to expand...

Actually other related charges can be considered by the jury.

This was already addressed and answered, on this thread, with supporting documentation.

It isn't all or nothing.

BTW-- Jury instructions are posted twice, on this thread-- once on Part I, again on Part II. Thanks! :)
 
Brini said:
Actually other related charges can be considered by the jury.

This was already addressed and answered, on this thread, with supporting documentation.

It isn't all or nothing.
Click to expand...

This opinion was rendered September 29, 2008; Deparvine v. State, No. SC06-155 (Fla. 2008)

"...

We also reject the related claim that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could find premeditated murder, felony murder, or both, when the indictment only charged first-degree murder and cited the first-degree murder statute, but did not specify any specific theory. However, we have never held that the State (or a grand jury), must designate in the indictment or information the specific theory charged, so long as the defendant is put on notice that he is charged with first-degree murder under the relevant statute. Indeed, we have held that even where the State expressly charges premeditation it may nevertheless proceed under an alternative felony murder theory. O'Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691, 695 (Fla. 1983); see also Knight v. State, 338 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 1976).

..."

So, unless someone can come up with a more recent opinion that overturns Knight, it appears to be the very, very well settled law of Florida.

ETA: Here's another:

Hannon v. State, 2006.FL.0006799 (Fla. 2006)

"...

We have repeatedly held that there is no error in permitting the State to proceed on a theory of felony murder when the indictment charges the defendant with first-degree premeditated murder. See Anderson v. State, 841 So. 2d 390, 404 (Fla. 2003) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in permitting the State to proceed on the theory of felony murder when the indictment only charged first-degree murder); Kearse v. State, 662 So. 2d 677, 682 (Fla. 1995) ("The State need not charge felony murder in an indictment in order to prosecute a defendant under alternative theories of premeditated and felony murder when the indictment charges premeditated murder."); Knight v. State, 338 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 1976) ("We find appellant's allegation that the court erred in allowing the State to prosecute the charges [sic] under a theory of felony murder when the indictment charged premeditated murder to be absolutely contrary to established precedent."). Therefore, we conclude that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to present this meritless issue on appeal. See Rutherford, 774 So. 2d at 643.
..."
 
ThoughtElf said:
Thread #972 and a feeling of deja vu.

I am appreciative of the above statement in bold as it reminds us that while we're debating premeditation, that is not the sole crux of the issue.

JBean, might we extend this thread out to intelligently and respectfully discuss all aspects of premeditation, or are we restricted her to discuss premeditation as it might relate to charges?

While I do personally believe that Casey commited premeditated murder, I respect that many might not agree with that sentiment.

But, I have to wonder about the additional premediation on Casey's part - regardless of the charges/laws.

I'd like to explore other aspects of Casey's premeditation, for example: I would like to think that there isn't a sole participatant in this discussion who doesn't recognize that Casey is representative of an individual who deliberately and decidedly prolonged her families' agony in looking for an 'Alive Caylee.' Willful.

Here is where we get down to the short-hairs of the discussion... I understand that it is the nature of the beast to dissect semantics whilst interpreting the language of law. I get that and I appreciate that.

I'd like to see this thread become more interesting with the inclusion of some intelligent discussion in regards to the ethics and morals of premeditation in general. The inherant issue with this intelligent debate seems to be that it is lacking in a standard of moral measure. We're all commenting on the interpretation of legal linguistics without uttering much in regards to the moral dilemas that juors will struggle with.

I'd be hard pressed to isolate a singular argument posted on the previous 971 premeditation threads that speaks to the moral/ethical issues that evolved from Casey's premeditated efforts and actions to further confuse, hurt and prolong her families' stability, if Caylee did indeed die by accidental death.

JBEAN: Might we expand this thread to include ALL instances of premedition? To inlude those that occured after Oct. 15, 2008?

I can't help but believe that some nay-sayers who appear to prioritize. identify and define the 'victim' in this case differently than some of us will step up to intelligently discuss how it appears that a loving mother premeditated to further her own families pain - on the heels of an accidental death.

Let's step aside from the legal interpretations. Even if you're convined or not, of premeditation in regards to the charges, I would think that anyone who is not morally or emotionally stunted would agree that after July 15th, Casey has demonstrated a propensity to prolong her families' agony in a premeditated manner.

It would be refreshing if we had the leaway and the ability to challenge the definition of 'victim' and 'premeditation' w/o worries of being sanctioned.

Get it, got it - we've done 971 threads about premeditation as it is applicable to the law. YMMV (Your mileage may vary.)

This thread might evolve into something extraordinary if we open it up to include discussion of ALL of Casey's premeditated acts.

I have to hope that somewhere within the most die-hard 'nay-sayers' words, there exists some abstract conception of the true definition of 'victim' - even if it transcends the much-despised laws & legalese.

Can we post to the majority? Only a slim few, lacking in the ability to disassociate this case from their own experience would step up and argue based on any evidence or law that CAYLEE was the victim - not Casey.

Can we speak up respectfullyto discuss Casey's entirely contrived, planned and plotted premeditation in regards to how she's treated her family - and her poor baby's remains?

I think it is relevant and falls well within the thread title subject.

We've dabated the laws on 971 previous threads - can we fairly open this up and ask for a tad more MORAL depth to the discussion? (It's all well and good to rehash ESTABLISHED legal precedent out the whazoo...) could we move this along to an actual intellectual discussion that includes mores - and you can bet that the jury is thinking along these lines.)

Example: IF, IF, IF Caylee's death was accidental ---> EVERY move, utterance and action/inaction on Casey's part since has been premeditated.
Click to expand...

ITA Brownies and bonus points coming right up :dance:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 1,075 (members: 76, guests: 999)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
999
Total visitors
1,075
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,784
Messages
17,958,852
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top