Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
That won't work because we have the neighbors and Annie Downing telling the police that KC called her mother a "f___in idiot" when she was out on bail the first time, and also the neighbors heard KC yelling at her mother with obscenities in front of their house.

That blows the terrified daughter theory.

And if they use the sociopath theory - that won't work because it is a "disorder" and not a "disease".

Also, she tried to hide it and as I first mentioned she hid it from someone she openly called a "f in" idiot. She was not afraid of Cindy.

As far as the sexual abuse theory, KC said she would wake up with her bra above her head. So we are all supposed to believe that she is such a "heavy" sleeper that she noticed nothing during the act. That story gets shredded in a matter of five questions.

Oh, I agree, there are problems with any defense theory. This one I just think is the best of any out there. I would give it a 15% chance of winning. :)

Back to the legal questions thread lol--I just wanted to point out that the distinction between a "disorder" and a "disease" has no legal effect when we're talking about EXPLAINING the alleged cover-up-following-an-accident behavior (rather than trying to EXCUSE a murder).
 
:)

I just wanted to point out that the distinction between a "disorder" and a "disease" has no legal effect when we're talking about EXPLAINING the alleged cover-up-following-an-accident behavior (rather than trying to EXCUSE a murder).

If I understand you correctly, a disorder as opposed to a disease has no legal effect in the explanation of why. But it does, if I understand you correctly, because with a disorder, they KNOW right from wrong, as a sociopath knows right from wrong. A diseased mind, such as a schizophrenic, does not.

Unless you are agreeing with that - I'm dealing with very little sleep today.
 
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. ;)

A million thanks-That covers bases I would not have thought to cover.
 
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.

I think this theory would have worked beautifully if Casey had taken a plea early on and 'confessed'. How much time (if any) do you think Casey would have received if she had gone this route versus dragging it out for years?
 
Back to the legal questions thread lol--I just wanted to point out that the distinction between a "disorder" and a "disease" has no legal effect when we're talking about EXPLAINING the alleged cover-up-following-an-accident behavior (rather than trying to EXCUSE a murder).

Ok, Trying to get this AZ, are you meaning that only in the penalty phase it doesn't matter if it's a disease or disorder if it explains some of the behavior? And only for sentencing? Or am I making this harder than it is?
 
lol AZ

if i see this at trial, being used as a defense ......
 
Hey guys, I don't mean to be all :nono: or :whip:, and I am by no means a :cop: mod, but we need to keep this on topic for :waitasec: Qs from us and :eek:nline: As from our verified lawyers, or else all :panic: will break loose... and Kimster will have to come down and :ufo: us all...

:truce:
 
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. ;)

I think your right on here AZ. While this story is a lot to swallow, and as pointed out has weaknesses, the Zanny story is a ZERO. I think they are going to back away from it, and seem to be pointing to, "undetermined cause of death." Where they can go with that, I haven't a clue. I too think ICA's best shot is just say basically what you have written.

Do you think there is ANY room still left for a plea deal at this late date?

Thanks for all you do,

USARdog
 
If I understand you correctly, a disorder as opposed to a disease has no legal effect in the explanation of why. But it does, if I understand you correctly, because with a disorder, they KNOW right from wrong, as a sociopath knows right from wrong. A diseased mind, such as a schizophrenic, does not.

Unless you are agreeing with that - I'm dealing with very little sleep today.

Ok, Trying to get this AZ, are you meaning that only in the penalty phase it doesn't matter if it's a disease or disorder if it explains some of the behavior? And only for sentencing? Or am I making this harder than it is?


Whether someone knows right from wrong is important if you are trying to EXCUSE someone's behavior based on insanity. There has been no attempt in this case to argue insanity, or that Casey was so mentally ill she did not know right from wrong.

If you are merely trying to EXPLAIN why someone is acting strangely--e.g., dancing and partying after one's baby has died through some terrible no-fault accident--it does not matter whether they know right from wrong. That's not the issue. The issue is whether they are "weird" in some way that would explain their behavior for the jury.

For the penalty phase (which is the same as the sentencing phase), it also doesn't matter if the person knew right from wrong, because it is too late at the penalty phase to be discussing insanity--that's an issue for the guilt phase. At the penalty phase, you are also no longer trying to EXPLAIN the strange behavior in order to get the jury to buy a theory of non-guilt (e.g., an accident theory). The jury has already found the person guilty at that point, so obviously they did not buy your theory. Instead, at the penalty phase, you are trying to get the jury to feel sorry for the person and not give them the death penalty. So you can bring up a true mental illness, a behavioral disorder, abuse that did NOT lead to any behavioral disorder, etc.

So the only time it matters whether the person knew right from wrong is for an insanity defense. For any other purpose, all sorts of mental deficiencies and disorders might come into play.

I think this theory would have worked beautifully if Casey had taken a plea early on and 'confessed'. How much time (if any) do you think Casey would have received if she had gone this route versus dragging it out for years?

If she had confessed to covering up an accident, and had described an accident that was consistent with the evidence and somehow could not be blamed on her negligence, I doubt she would have served any time. But IMO there are not many accidents that happen to 2-year-olds that did not happen to some extent because of the negligence of a caregiver. (Which is not to say that you can't feel terrible for the caregiver having to pay such a high price for a little negligence. :( )
 
I think your right on here AZ. While this story is a lot to swallow, and as pointed out has weaknesses, the Zanny story is a ZERO. I think they are going to back away from it, and seem to be pointing to, "undetermined cause of death." Where they can go with that, I haven't a clue. I too think ICA's best shot is just say basically what you have written.

Do you think there is ANY room still left for a plea deal at this late date?

Thanks for all you do,

USARdog

Yes! IMO the defense team ought to be trying to work out a plea deal instead of alienating the SA with their nasty little digs and personal comments.
 
Questions followed by answers from verified attornies only please. Thanks
 
do you think its her defense team or her arrogance that is keeping them from working out a plea deal..and how likely is that really to happen?
 
What would be the point of stating misleading information in a summation during a hearing? CM did this on the 7th in the hearing. He made a number of errors in his statements, the most obvious was that KC had been handcuffed when taken by the female officer to Sawgrass. When the judge called him on it, he again made a misstatement by saying it was not made clear (when it was clear by statements from the A's and LE at what time she had been handcuffed). Is this permitted at trial or is CM just losing it (or pretending to).
 
do you think its her defense team or her arrogance that is keeping them from working out a plea deal..and how likely is that really to happen?

Just guessing, but I think it's both. And because of those two obstacles, I don't think a plea agreement is likely.
 
What would be the point of stating misleading information in a summation during a hearing? CM did this on the 7th in the hearing. He made a number of errors in his statements, the most obvious was that KC had been handcuffed when taken by the female officer to Sawgrass. When the judge called him on it, he again made a misstatement by saying it was not made clear (when it was clear by statements from the A's and LE at what time she had been handcuffed). Is this permitted at trial or is CM just losing it (or pretending to).

There would be no point to misstating the evidence, because opposing counsel is bound to correct you and you would lose credibility with the judge.

IMO CM was just confused. I agree that the witnesses' statements at the hearing about the handcuffing were inconsistent (IIRC time periods ranged from 5 minutes to 1 hour), but I don't believe any witness suggested Casey was still handcuffed when she left for Sawgrass.
 
Regarding a plea deal, of course the state would want to get as much time as possible and the defense team as little time as possible, but in your professional opinion, what do you think would be a fair plea deal to both sides? I know this is going on what we know and there are probably things we don't know that both the defense and the prosecution probably know, but still, what do you think would be a fair plea deal? Also, if a plea deal is reached, how likely would it be that Casey would have to get up in court and admit what she did?
 
Can you explain your reason for thinking that Casey could be found guilty of a lesser charge? What evidence do you think would prove to a jury that this was an accidental death (neglect?) and not an intentional murder?

I think you need to examine it from the opposite view point, meaning can the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee intentionally.

If the State cannot prove that - beyond a reasonable doubt - then the lesser verdict would be either Second Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, or Not Guilty.

I think that if a jury was having a difficult time finding that the State proved First Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt they would compromise with a verdict of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child.
 
03/21/2011 Motion to Vacate
and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification

What does this mean?
 
Is the jury ever shown on television/broadcasts of trials? I can't think of an instance outside of "Law & Order" where the camera panned to the jury, and it seems to me that the courtroom cameras are often positioned deliberately to not include the jury box.

If jurors are protected from being filmed during trial, what are the laws that provide for that? Are they federal laws applicable in every state? Or is it state-by-state but every state happens to have the same laws?

How are jurors protected from being filmed/identified as they move from the courthouse to the van that takes them back to their sequestered temporary home? (Yikes, lots of questions here, sorry.)

And as long as we're on the general topic, what laws govern jurors' decisions post-trial to take part in televised events where they recap their experience of deliberations?

(And as always thank you! :blowkiss:)

The Orange County Courthouse has a special, below ground garage for judges, elected officials, and corrections transportation. So the jurors will load and unload from the underground garage.

There are no laws that govern what a juror wants to do after the trial regarding speaking with the media, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
898
Total visitors
975

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,726
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top