Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[websurfer]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...casey-anthony-dismiss-20091103,0,264527.story

Here we go again!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Lawyers for Casey Anthony have filed new paperwork, asking a judge to throw out the murder charge against her.

This time, they allege that prosecutors and an Orange County grand jury put so little information in their indictment, she cannot possibly defend herself.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ther_beatingA_Dead
Looks like they know she is GUILTy and do not have the defense they need to make her look NOT GUILTY.
If they truely thought she was not the killer they would defend her not try to dismiss the charges...
this will not fly:croc:

 

[Rlaub44]

Incorrect. It does place that item of evidence in the defense column. Please focus sharply on the word 'reasonable'. which we rely on as a centerpiece for standard of proof in criminal trials.

When the defense offers a explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence that a juror finds to be 'reasonable', the juror cannot then use that item of evidence to support proof beyond a 'reasonable' doubt. To do otherwise would be fallacious logic.

HTH

Thank you for adjusting your wording. Even if the juror finds the counter explanation for one piece of evidence reasonable, it does not completely tip the scales over to reasonable doubt of guilt.

For example, prosecution may argue that KC was responsible for the computer searches (for chloroform and neck breaking) and have supporting evidence. Defense may suggest that CA used KC's account and have supporting evidence for that.

A juror may find that explanation reasonable, and then not consider that inculpatory against KC. However, they may still view the remaining evidence and find that no other reasonable alternative exists; therefore, they may find KC guilty beyond a reasonable doubt despite the discounted evidence of computer searches.

Being that this is the Motion to Dismiss thread, we can move further discussion of this to an appropriate place. I do think, however, the fact that we can find so many pieces of circumstantial evidence to debate supports denying the defense motion and allowing the trial to proceed.

 

[shellsbells]

Can anyone here think of a "reasonable" cause (considering none of ones friends, family or acquaintances had a broken neck) that one might do a search for "neck breaking"? And at the same time, the same person researches chloroform and household weapons? I would love to hear anything remotely "reasonable" that would explain these searches away as innocent.

Wow, I've seen those words a thousand times and for some reason the phrase "neck breaking" always seemed so odd to me, but just now (probably eons behind the rest of you) I realized it's probably referring to when, in movies and tv shows, someone sneaks up behind someone else and just twists their neck and they fall. Is that what they were looking up, how to do that? Because if so... those searches just got way, way more horrific for me.

What I don't understand re: these motions, is that so many times the Defense (and CA, and KC herself) have said that there's all this information they "just can't say until we know where Caylee is". How come, now that she's not missing anymore, they aren't being pressed more for all that info?

Of course, we probably all know the answer to that...

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for adjusting your wording. Even if the juror finds the counter explanation for one piece of evidence reasonable, it does not completely tip the scales over to reasonable doubt of guilt.

For example, prosecution may argue that KC was responsible for the computer searches (for chloroform and neck breaking) and have supporting evidence. Defense may suggest that CA used KC's account and have supporting evidence for that.

A juror may find that explanation reasonable, and then not consider that inculpatory against KC. However, they may still view the remaining evidence and find that no other reasonable alternative exists; therefore, they may find KC guilty beyond a reasonable doubt despite the discounted evidence of computer searches.

Being that this is the Motion to Dismiss thread, we can move further discussion of this to an appropriate place. I do think, however, the fact that we can find so many pieces of circumstantial evidence to debate supports denying the defense motion and allowing the trial to proceed.

I'm simply happy to see that you appreciate the reasoning behind what I said.

As for linking this to the motion to dismiss, on most any case leading into a trial there will be chamber discussions (in camera, which means in private) with the trial Judge and attorneys for both sides. It's not at all out of the ordinary for a case discussion to warp into arguing the probative value of an item or two or three of evidence. And those arguments can, and sometimes do, hinge on what the two sides put forth as a reasonable view of certain circumstantial evidence. For at least a little while, most any trial Judge will listen as attorneys offer insights.

As time passes, such chamber discussions pile up and, in turn, the Judge's understanding of key debates and issues regarding and surrounding the evidence. The public might think this motion to dismiss was unexpected, I doubt that it greatly surprised Judge Strickland.

FWIW

 

[Intermezzo]

As you are well aware jury instructions vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Reading up on specific cases in Florida in regards to premeditated versus felony murder (despite the indictment charge) sheds some light on the topic. There are SEVERAL people on death row that were charged under the premeditated statute and the prosecution presented a felony murder scenario. The Supreme Court of Florida has upheld those convictions as long as the aggravating felony was included in the indictment .

In addition Florida does not require that the jury be in agreement regarding felony murder versus premeditated. Half of them can feel that she planned it, three of them can think she flipped out in a moments rage, and the other three can be undecided and they can still come back with a capital conviction if they believe Casey is responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony. Again, this issue has been taken to the Supreme Court and the convictions held up.

We can debate law theories all day but discussing them in the realm of them being one size fits all will always lead to these circular discussions. The relevant matter in this case is how Florida courts handle the charges and jury instructions, and it is NOT in the manner you are describing.

BBM
While I am enjoying reading the posts on this thread, I am in agreement with the part bolded by me.

 

[JBean]

There is an awful lot of tit for tat going on in this thread and it is getting real old.

Regarding going OT. we all do it. it happens from time to time and such is life. But, when the whole conversation on the thread shifts to a new topic or if posters habitually go off topic,then I have to spend a lot of time moving posts to their appropriate thread and it is just too time consuming.
When posters admonish each other for going OT, that is also going OT.

So, getting each other back on topic by posting on topic is always the best way to get a thread back on topic. I need the help from you guys.

thanks.

eta: as always where this post lands on the thread is no reflection on immediate nearby posts necessrily.

 

[RR0004]

Incorrect. It does place that item of evidence in the defense column. Please focus sharply on the word 'reasonable'. which we rely on as a centerpiece for standard of proof in criminal trials.

When the defense offers a explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence that a juror finds to be 'reasonable', the juror cannot then use that item of evidence to support proof beyond a 'reasonable' doubt. To do otherwise would be fallacious logic.

HTH

I personally cannot wait for those explanations!

 

[lizzysf]

It seems to me like the defense knows they can't defend her..she will be found guilty. So all they can do now is to work on reducing the sentencing in all her of charges as much as possible, knocking out a DP qualified jury being first on the hit list.

 

[Mendara]

After the defense team reviewed all the discovery given to them thus far, they believe there is nothing in that discovery that validates a Death Penalty charge, so they filed the motion to dismiss the dp charge. I may be incorrect about this, but that's the way I read it. So I don't think they are asking for the SA to reveal strategies about the case, I think they are asking for validation of the DP charge. I think SS will deny this motion.

I agree with you. Also, why would the Defense claim an accidental death? When there still is no CAUSE of DEATH - if they did they would be admitting that Caylee died by XYZ giving the prosecution a cause of death to run with.

JB said in the very begining that Kc would not reveal all her cards if it meant jail time for her. Now if the prosecution had a cause of death and could prove it, then the defense would and should claim it was an accident. All that is left is for the prsecution to state HOW they believe she was murdered, but how will they prove this? Until then this case is balancing on a very thin line. IMO

 

[Wudge]

I agree with you. Also, why would the Defense claim an accidental death? When there still is no CAUSE of DEATH - if they did they would be admitting that Caylee died by XYZ giving the prosecution a cause of death to run with.

JB said in the very begining that Kc would not reveal all her cards if it meant jail time for her. Now if the prosecution had a cause of death and could prove it, then the defense would and should claim it was an accident. All that is left is for the prsecution to state HOW they believe she was murdered, but how will they prove this? Until then this case is balancing on a very thin line. IMO

(Gold star for your forehead.)

The motion to dismiss asks Judge Strickland to assess the evidence upon which the indictment was made and the evidence that has since become known. The defense has but a simple question: where's the beef?

That's not to say that Judge Strickland will find for the defense. Judges are very beholding to the community they serve. Few judges will reverse an indictment that arises from Grand Jury proceedings even though they might have not supported the charges had the evidence been presented to them (instead of a Grand Jury) in a preliminary hearing.

 

[Oakley]

So true - and the only reason they were even brought there to begin with was because, after over 24 hours of getting a silly stories and a wild goose chase from KC, LE realized (perhaps from the DAMNED DEAD BODY in the trunk call from a FAMILY MEMBER) that they should check that out and stop looking for errant imaginannies.

What is also interesting is that KC's parents apparently were not swallowing the Nanny theory either because - even though they had not seen Caylee in over a month - they SEARCHED THE BACK YARD themselves.

LE did not view the Anthony home as a crime scene because a) KC had not been living there and b) the crime was supposedly a kidnapping and had taken place elsewhere

I'm sure that if LE had been given reason to suspect that perhaps a crime had taken place inside the Anthony home they would have had the dogs inside. And I am equally sure that if LE had been given a reason to suspect anyone else of foul play they would have done the same thing.

In fact, I feel sorry for all of the people that have been unnecessarily scrutinized and investigated and taped and had their records pored over and published and been commented on in the media and blogs in this case simply because KC refused to answer truthfully and her family corroborated her lies. In fact, if anyone should be up in arms and suing for invasion of privacy it's everyone in this investigation who has had their lives turned inside out "on a whim" by a lying, thieving little brat whose parents are STILL coddling by using all kinds of scapegoats and wild excuses.

It may work to blame everyone else when your kid is too lazy to make up a high school credit, but it just doesn't cut it when you blame everyone else for the death of a toddler.

:clap::clap::clap::clap: Exceptionally well-written.

 

[reeseeva]

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Defense privy, to what evidence the Grand Jury based the indictment on?

 

[cecybeans]

I agree with you. Also, why would the Defense claim an accidental death? When there still is no CAUSE of DEATH - if they did they would be admitting that Caylee died by XYZ giving the prosecution a cause of death to run with.

JB said in the very begining that Kc would not reveal all her cards if it meant jail time for her. Now if the prosecution had a cause of death and could prove it, then the defense would and should claim it was an accident. All that is left is for the prsecution to state HOW they believe she was murdered, but how will they prove this? Until then this case is balancing on a very thin line. IMO

Small problem with this - it has already been done by the defense. Lenamon made his brief to the court to remove the death penalty and his argument postulated that Caylee's death was most likely accidental due to a drug overdose and that her mother suffered from a mitigating mental condition. If that was somethng that was not in line with JB's original strategy (which was rather unclear at the time this happened - he and Todd Black were making ridiculous and outrageous claims to the media), then JB should have prevented that cat from getting out of the bag.

 

[cecybeans]

(Gold star for your forehead.)

The motion to dismiss asks Judge Strickland to assess the evidence upon which the indictment was made and the evidence that has since become known. The defense has but a simple question: where's the beef?

That's not to say that Judge Strickland will find for the defense. Judges are very beholding to the community they serve. Few judges will reverse an indictment that arises from Grand Jury proceedings even though they might have not supported the charges had the evidence been presented to them (instead of a Grand Jury) in a preliminary hearing.

Well then somebody should have asked for a bench trial. Unless cynicism is universally applied to anyone other than a defense attorney.

 

[Wudge]

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Defense privy, to what evidence the Grand Jury based the indictment on?

No. A person who is indicted by a Grand Jury does not have a right to know what was presented or said to the Grand Jury. Nor does a person who might well be indicted for a crime have a right to present evidence to a Grand Jury.

 

[Wudge]

Well then somebody should have asked for a bench trial. Unless cynicism is universally applied to anyone other than a defense attorney.

Many trial judges are but extensions of the D.A.'s office. I don't have insight as to whether a bench trial conducted by Judge Strickland might be perferable to a trial by jury. Still, even if the defense had requested a bench trial, I doubt prosecutors would have agreed. The People have a right to a trial by jury too.

And why would a prosecutor want to waste a well poisoned jury pool?

 

[cecybeans]

Many trial judges are but extensions of the D.A.'s office. I don't have insight as to whether a bench trial conducted by Judge Strickland might be perferable to a trial by jury. Still, even if the defense had requested a bench trial, I doubt prosecutors would have agreed. The People have a right to a trial by jury too.

And why would a prosecutor want to waste a well poisoned jury pool?

You may not have the insight but the way you framed your answer indicates that you have already formed your opinion ahead of time. Is not that the very definition of "well poisoned"?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

You may not have the insight but the way you framed your answer indicates that you have already formed your opinion ahead of time. Is not that the very definition of "well poisoned"?

Bravo, cecy! You know Wudge, w/ all due respect...... you can't eat your "poisoned" cake and have it too........

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

OT! Please lift a prayer for our soldiers, families and associates at Ft Hood TX. Seven dead, 20 to 30 injured. One in custody, one being pursued. Base on lockdown.

 

[RR0004]

(Gold star for your forehead.)

The motion to dismiss asks Judge Strickland to assess the evidence upon which the indictment was made and the evidence that has since become known. The defense has but a simple question: where's the beef?

That's not to say that Judge Strickland will find for the defense. Judges are very beholding to the community they serve. Few judges will reverse an indictment that arises from Grand Jury proceedings even though they might have not supported the charges had the evidence been presented to them (instead of a Grand Jury) in a preliminary hearing.

The judge's tie to the community aside, there is way too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss the indictment.