The Charges, Statutes - What Must Be Proven

[marspiter]

Thanks Wudge, I see now. But, I actually meant I wondered why they didn't charge her with it instead of premeditated murder; like in the Huck case.

Kinda wonder that myself JBean. Personally I think Felony murder would be much more fitting to the circumstances we know thus far. I could personally see felony murder in this case but for murder 1. I'd have to admit there are still some major if's there. My personal belief is the SA has something we haven't seen as of yet. I think there has to be a reason the SA charged Casey the way they did. Just not sure what that reason is perhaps as we get closer to trial more evidence will reveal itself.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks Wudge, I see now. But, I actually meant I wondered why they didn't charge her with it instead of premeditated murder; like in the Huck case.

My belief is that because of the near absence of inculpatory evidence and the lack of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death that prosecutors believe it would be easier to obtain an emotion-based conviction on murder one, than it would be to prove Caylee died from aggravated child abuse and the related manslaughter charge, against which prosecutors could attach a charge of felony murder (degree of their choosing to be determined).

For a minute, reflect on the unique evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died as a result of aggravated child abuse. I've done that and have come up with near zilch. Moreover, the accident option still remains open against that charge and still makes a lot of sense given: the location of Caylee's body being on the surface and close to the road near her home, the short strips of duct tape with hearts on them, the Winnie the Pooh blanket, driving around for days with the body in the trunk of the car (prosecutors allegation), etc..

I can't see that the evidence is there to prove aggravated child abuse and attendant manslaughter any more than the evidence is there to prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, which, as you know, I hold such evidence not to be there. My assessment at this point is that for any of the State's charges, the jury would have to, at best, guess at what transpired. And you cannot arrive at proof beyond a reasonable doubt by guessing.

What's missing are highly reliable premises that can be formed from the evidence that we know about. As I've noted in posts more than once, the reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be greater than the reliability of the premises it was drawn from.

In summary, I have not seen evidence that proves murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence that proves aggravated child abuse and the related manslaughter charge is just as foggy if not moreso. So I'm not surprised that prosecutors choose not to go the felony murder route.

 

[marspiter]

My belief is that because of the near absence of inculpatory evidence and the lack of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death that prosecutors believe it would be easier to obtain an emotion-based conviction on murder one, than it would be to prove Caylee died from aggravated child abuse and the related manslaughter charge, against which prosecutors could attach a charge of felony murder (degree of their choosing to be determined).

For a minute, reflect on the unique evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died as a result of aggravated child abuse. I've done that and have come up with near zilch. Moreover, the accident option still remains open against that charge and still makes a lot of sense given: the location of Caylee's body being on the surface and close to the road near her home, the short strips of duct tape with hearts on them, the Winnie the Pooh blanket, driving around for days with the body in the trunk of the car (prosecutors allegation), etc..

I can't see that the evidence is there to prove aggravated child abuse and attendant manslaughter any more than the evidence is there to prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, which, as you know, I hold such evidence not to be there. My assessment at this point is that for any of the State's charges, the jury would have to, at best, guess at what transpired. And you cannot arrive at proof beyond a reasonable doubt by guessing.

What's missing are highly reliable premises that can be formed from the evidence that we know about. As I've noted in posts more than once, the reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be greater than the reliability of the premises it was drawn from.

In summary, I have not seen evidence that proves murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence that proves aggravated child abuse and the related manslaughter charge is just as foggy if not moreso. So I'm not surprised that prosecutors choose not to go the felony murder route.

However wouldn't the accident route also yield a felony murder? Given that Casey never rendered aid or attempted to call 911? As her parent Casey was required to do so. Also letting someone die would be culpable negligence and would be manslaughter in Florida. That and Caylee's age is also a factor. My question is by not rendering aid or calling 911 would that also be aggravated child abuse do to Casey being Caylee's mother and the age of Caylee?

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I would like your opinion on this post by Impatientredhead, brought here today by Lin.

TIA

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Procedure and legal questions

I did post in that thread. In one of my final posts, I recall conservatively noting significant Constitutional issues. Read through the thread and you will find my position.

 

[Wudge]

However wouldn't the accident route also yield a felony murder? Given that Casey never rendered aid or attempted to call 911? As her parent Casey was required to do so. Also letting someone die would be culpable negligence and would be manslaughter in Florida. That and Caylee's age is also a factor. My question is by not rendering aid or calling 911 would that also be aggravated child abuse do to Casey being Caylee's mother and the age of Caylee?

Not that I can see. The jury considering the obvious accident option is an out in my mind. I don't relate a pure accident to aggravated child abuse. And Casey has not been charged with any crime related to Caylee dying as a result of a pure accident for which Casey did not render appropriate aid.

 

[tweety933]

Kinda wonder that myself JBean. Personally I think Felony murder would be much more fitting to the circumstances we know thus far. I could personally see felony murder in this case but for murder 1. I'd have to admit there are still some major if's there. My personal belief is the SA has something we haven't seen as of yet. I think there has to be a reason the SA charged Casey the way they did. Just not sure what that reason is perhaps as we get closer to trial more evidence will reveal itself.

I think maybe the SA office wanted Casey to have a better attorney, and knew that if they charged her with a death penalty offense, JB would have to take a backseat, therefore preventing the ineffectiveness of counsel, that we have all so begrudgingly had to endure until AL came on the scene.

This could be why they charged her the way they did, instead of just felony murder. They knew how important it was for Casey to have an "experienced" attorney to avoid appeal issues. Just my opinion.

 

[noonie]

I can't wait for 9:30 this am Yeah!!! I can't wait!!!

 

[Jolynna]

The indictment will stand for Murder 1, Aggravated Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter and 4 counts of lying to LE. Judge S. dismissed the defense motion.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Originally Posted by impatientredhead

"This issue has gone to the Florida Supreme court several times and the convictions have been upheld as long as the aggravating felony was on the indictment. In the cases where it was not on the indictment they did not allow the alternative finding of felony murder. In the cases where it was included the court found (repeatedly) that the defendant's ability to defend themselves was not impeded and the conviction stood. "

"The other issue that came up in Florida was that the jury did not have to a cohesive group when it came to felony murder or premeditated murder. The jury could be completely split on that issue and still come back with a capital conviction. That has been challenged to the Florida Supreme Courts repeatedly and the convictions have been upheld on that issue."

So, the jury can be torn between 1st degree murder and felony murder and still come back with a capital murder conviction ?

 

[Intermezzo]

I think the aggravated child abuse is covered with the duct tape =willfully tortures,maliciously punishes.
Bagging her up and keeping her in the trunk=unlawfully cages a child
leaving Caylee to rot in the woods = permanent disfigurement to a child

Hi MissJames
The charges including the aggravated child abuse charge came before Caylee's remains were even found..
Now I'm curious to know or piece together what evidence LE/SA had to add this charge before Caylee's remains and the additional evidence was found.??? The chloroform searches on the computer plus the chloroform in the car perhaps??? Dunno.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Hi MissJames
The charges including the aggravated child abuse charge came before Caylee's remains were even found..
Now I'm curious to know or piece together what evidence LE/SA had to add this charge before Caylee's remains and the additional evidence was found.??? The chloroform searches on the computer plus the chloroform in the car perhaps??? Dunno.

Hopefully we will know soon . :dance::dance::dance:

 

[Intermezzo]

Didn't they reinstate the death penalty AFTER they found Caylee's body? I'd imagine they dropped the death penalty because they didn't have the body, and once they found it, BINGO, they saw the duct tape, and put the death penalty back ON. Just my guess.

Yes Tweety they did but not right away.
The Death Penalty was dropped December 5, 2008, Caylee's remains were found on December 11, 2008,then the SA reinstated the DP in April 2009

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/04/13/intent.seek.death.pdf

Notice of Intent to seek the Death Penalty

 

[Intermezzo]

IIRC, this was a DP case from last October. There was great discussion as to the fact that JB was not DP-qualified, hence the importation from Miami area of TL, the attorney who made the initial plea to have the DP removed around last November. He put together a brief that postulated if Caylee were indeed deceased, it most likely happened as an accident from a drug overdose and that the killer/defendant was suffering from a depressive disorder such as PPD. He included several family photos of KC as a child and also brief accounts of other females who had been on trial for killing their children.

After he submitted this brief/motion/whatever, the SA did indeed remove the DP from the table. Although Caylee's body was recovered in December, I believe the DP went back into the charges this past April after all of the forensics had been returned.

Even without the body, the SA had enough confidence in the charge to have included it after the GJ proceedings and before Caylee's remains were discovered, which makes me wonder what the initial DP charge may have hinged upon.

BBM
I agree, it does make one wonder what evidence the SA had when they went to Grand Jury in October 2008 before Caylee and the additional forensic evidence was found.:waitasec:

 

[impatientredhead]

Originally Posted by impatientredhead

"This issue has gone to the Florida Supreme court several times and the convictions have been upheld as long as the aggravating felony was on the indictment. In the cases where it was not on the indictment they did not allow the alternative finding of felony murder. In the cases where it was included the court found (repeatedly) that the defendant's ability to defend themselves was not impeded and the conviction stood. "

"The other issue that came up in Florida was that the jury did not have to a cohesive group when it came to felony murder or premeditated murder. The jury could be completely split on that issue and still come back with a capital conviction. That has been challenged to the Florida Supreme Courts repeatedly and the convictions have been upheld on that issue."

So, the jury can be torn between 1st degree murder and felony murder and still come back with a capital murder conviction ?

Yep- I can pull some of the cases back up but they are bookmarked on my other PC. I was shocked by that claim made somewhere else in the forum so I went digging. There are four states that allow this thus far. The supreme court in that state basically said there is the basis of common law and that the crime and punishment are really one in the same (ie one is not a max sentence of 30 years and the other is executable) so if the jury is 100% in agreement that the defendant killed the victim either with premeditation of murder, or premeditation of commission of a felony they did not have to be an agreement which had actually occured. If they have a hold out that says they think it was manslaughter or negligence or none of the above it would be a hung jury of course.

Florida has been among the first in a few things like this. They led the way on DNA testing. They have now added that the JURY is entitled to ask questions of the witnesses though how that will be handled procedurally is still being determined. I *believe* currently a note is given to the judge to decide if the question can be asked legally and then it is addressed.

 

[JBean]

They made some changes to the capital jury instructions just in the last couple weeks due to so much juror confusion on the DP. Could come into play on this case I suppose.

Court reworks death penalty jury instructions
After years of study and recommendations, the Florida Supreme Court has overhauled jury instructions in death penalty cases to conform to recent rulings and make them easier for jurors. But three justices argued they should have been made even more jury — and judge — friendly.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN...9ce06193c2ea095685257663006ee804!OpenDocument

 

[Marina2]

The evidence and circumstances in this case do not lend themselves to simultaneous charges of both premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder. Given the evidence in this case and the circumstances that we know of, prosecutors would need to offer two incongruent thoeries to the jury; i.e., prosecutors would offer one theory would to the jury for the premeditated murder charge and also offer another and much different theory to the jury for a first-degree, felony murder charge.

By offering the jury two entirely different theories, prosecutors would be arguing against themselves by necessarily admitting they don't know what transpired in a large way -- prosecutors don't know what transpired but are not dumb enough to necessarily admit that truth by presenting two incongruent theories to the jury.

A case where the evidence might well provide for a simultaneous murder one charge and a felony murder charge would be if a killing occurred in a robbery and all the evidence pointed to but one clear suspect and/or that person admitted to the robbery. In such a case, a simultaneous murder one charge and a first-degree felony murder charge would simply allow the jury to decide if the victim was killed to facilitate the robbery or if the robbery was underway and the victim resisted or tried to intervene and was killed as a result.

HTH

Thank you Wudge. Your post helped me to see why the state did not or will not seek a felony murder charge or conviction. The case example you gave where the law would be beneficial to the state's case helps as well.

So, my understanding is that while the law is there that allows the simultaneous charges, it would not be in the best interest of the state to use it. It could actually be detrimental to their case.

 

[Just Jayla]

Thank you Wudge. Your post helped me to see why the state did not or will not seek a felony murder charge or conviction. The case example you gave where the law would be beneficial to the state's case helps as well.

So, my understanding is that while the law is there that allows the simultaneous charges, it would not be in the best interest of the state to use it. It could actually be detrimental to their case.

I bumped a quote from impatientredhead on the lgeal thread in regards to this-I agree with Wudge, too-if the state is the one making that determintation...but there seemed to be some question as to whether the state has to address it or if the jury can come to that finding on their own in deliberation. I asked for clarification on that, will do some research, too (but I'm not an atty., fair warning!)

Please see her post on the Legal discussion thread for clarification on my garbledegook above!

 

[Marina2]

I bumped a quote from impatientredhead on the lgeal thread in regards to this-I agree with Wudge, too-if the state is the one making that determintation...but there seemed to be some question as to whether the state has to address it or if the jury can come to that finding on their own in deliberation. I asked for clarification on that, will do some research, too (but I'm not an atty., fair warning!)

Please see her post on the Legal discussion thread for clarification on my garbledegook above!

Thanks. I understand that that question is still out there. The legal discussion thread is my favorite and I have read it. I was only addressing my confusion about why the state can't or won't present a theory based on felony murder.
I see now why they didn't go there, so to speak.

 

[Just Jayla]

Thinking about it more, and remember, I am not an attorney, but maybe it could be done, going with premeditation while at the same time demonstrating the elements for felony murder:

If the state can make the case that KC taped Caylee's face, this may prompt a jury to felony murder conviction. They will have proven the lesser charge of aggravated child abuse, and the victim of that abuse is now dead. Caylee may have died due to the tape (suffocation), and Dr. G may contribute to that line of thought...

But if while having proven the above, they do not adequately link the computer searches, ZFG references, etc. to premeditative thoughts or, for example, cannot link chloroform to the death, the jury should be able to take premeditation out of the equation, no?

I guess what I am saying is that, while in deliberation, if the jury decides that the evidence likely shows Caylee died ultimately as a result of being duct taped (guilty on the child abuse charge), but that none of the premeditative elements quite fit, can't they come back with felony murder?

ETA: If the evidence points towards one thing, though the state goes on a skewed tangent related to this, can't the jury deliberate on the evidence, not just the state's theory?

 

[Marina2]

Thinking about it more, and remember, I am not an attorney, but maybe it could be done, going with premeditation while at the same time demonstrating the elements for felony murder:

If the state can make the case that KC taped Caylee's face, this may prompt a jury to felony murder conviction. They will have proven the lesser charge of aggravated child abuse, and the victim of that abuse is now dead. Caylee may have died due to the tape (suffocation), and Dr. G may contribute to that line of thought...

But if while having proven the above, they do not adequately link the computer searches, ZFG references, etc. to premeditative thoughts or, for example, cannot link chloroform to the death, the jury should be able to take premeditation out of the equation, no?

I guess what I am saying is that, while in deliberation, if the jury decides that the evidence likely shows Caylee died ultimately as a result of being duct taped (guilty on the child abuse charge), but that none of the premeditative elements quite fit, can't they come back with felony murder?

ETA: If the evidence points towards one thing, though the state goes on a skewed tangent related to this, can't the jury deliberate on the evidence, not just the state's theory?

If convicted of aggravated child abuse resulting in the death of a child, your question is:

"Isn't it a felony to duct tape a child and kill her, so that felony murder would come into play?"

Or, are you asking if felony murder is a LIO of aggravated child abuse?