2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[logicalgirl]

I predict that the defense will file another motion stating that the state did not give them exactly what they asked for. From what I heard the defense wanted it all spelled out for them. What aggravating factors they were going to go for and why they were going for those particular factors. To me the list is self explanatory and if someone on the defense team is so dense that they can not understand the why to any of those factors then perhaps they should resign and never practice law again.

ETA: Thanks to MM for once again providing us with the information so quickly!!

I put a quote over on the AGG/MIT thread that says the SA is required to ante up this list now, but don't have to provide "the full monty" until just before the trial - so whine away defense.

 

[cecybeans]

Just on WESH - they list 5, don't have the doc yet, the SA just filed it:

1. Aggravated Child Abuse
2. Cruel Crime
3. Premeditation
4. Under the age of 12
5. In mother's care

http://www.wesh.com/news/23544839/detail.html

WFTV has the doc up, which lists it by statute number. Ashton didn't spend much time on this! heh
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23545129/detail.html

WFTV story:
http://www.wftv.com/news/23545577/detail.html

.

As usual,thanks for being our Doc Mogul, lol - the one Ashton submitted looks like a Power Point slide for Idiots R Us to read. I wish the defense would stop making them do all the flipping work for them.

 

[Harmony 2]

You are correct, count 2 is the aggravated child abuse charge.

I recall during the hearing CM told Lyon that Count 2 would merge with Count 1.

 

[Muzikman]

Interesting wording in the notice. "........the State MAY argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter.

May is BBM. They are not saying they ARE going to argue all the factors they listed, just that they may. I wonder if that is normal for this type of notice or not?

Good catch, Mac. I'll bet that "May" will PO Baez to no end. :dance:

Seems like the actual arguments the SA will be using would be work product, as Ashton said at the hearing? And they don't have to give that up?

Would that be correct, AZ?

 

[AZlawyer]

Isn't the fact that she has been convicted of a felony an aggravating factor? OR am I wrong?

No. A conviction for a violent felony might be one of the factors, but not just "any old" felony.

 

[Marina2]

Interesting wording in the notice. "........the State MAY argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter.

May is BBM. They are not saying they ARE going to argue all the factors they listed, just that they may. I wonder if that is normal for this type of notice or not?

I noticed this too. Does it mean that they might argue all of the factors or that they can argue all of the factors. "may" is ambiguous in this context.

"...based upon the evidence available at present, the State may
argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter."

ETA: JA may have intentionally chosen that word to keep them guessing. They still don't know exactly what will be argued.

 

[logicalgirl]

Isn't the fact that she has been convicted of a felony an aggravating factor? OR am I wrong?

awaiting AZ's response but believe it is prior violent felony for aggravating. I think that one's (ICA's felony) a mitigating factor.

 

[Mamabear1963]

Isn't it strange that we all came up with the same idea of what the defense will do next? LOL! How long do you think it will be before this motion is filed? Friday afternoon at 10 minutes to 5 is my guess. lOL!

I think we will see this motion before the 7 dp motions that the defense was supposed to get to the state for response within 7 days

 

[AZlawyer]

Good catch, Mac. I'll bet that "May" will PO Baez to no end. :dance:

Seems like the actual arguments the SA will be using would be work product, as Ashton said at the hearing? And they don't have to give that up?

Would that be correct, AZ?

IMO, yes. But the SA wouldn't be giving up much to explain the application of each of these factors. It would take a sentence or two per factor.

Although for JB, it might take more. E.g.:

"1. Victim's age under 12. Explanation: Caylee was born on August 9, 2005. She died sometime between June 15, 2008 and December 11, 2008. In order to reach the age of 12, Caylee would have had to live until August 9, 2017. Therefore, by operation of known mathematical laws, Caylee was under the age of 12 at the time of her death."

 

[AZlawyer]

awaiting AZ's response but believe it is prior violent felony for aggravating. I think that one's (ICA's felony) a mitigating factor.

Wait...forgery is not an aggravating factor, but it sure as heck isn't mitigating!

 

[Mamabear1963]

IMO, yes. But the SA wouldn't be giving up much to explain the application of each of these factors. It would take a sentence or two per factor.

Although for JB, it might take more. E.g.:

"1. Victim's age under 12. Explanation: Caylee was born on August 9, 2005. She died sometime between June 15, 2008 and December 11, 2008. In order to reach the age of 12, Caylee would have had to live until August 9, 2017. Therefore, by operation of known mathematical laws, Caylee was under the age of 12 at the time of her death."

You crack me up...needed that one

 

[denjet]

Ok, I admit I am 'almost' looking forward to the defense filing a motion asking the State to spell out exactly why they are going to argue each aggravating factor. Can you imagine how JA or LDB would explain "the child under the age of 12 factor?" to the defense. I can just imagine it

If the defense comes back and says that the SA's response is intentionally vague and does not answer the question of why they are seeking the DP, I hope Ashton comes back with another one-pager that simple states: "Read the discovery!" :deal:

 

[logicalgirl]

I recall during the hearing CM told Lyon that Count 2 would merge with Count 1.

Yes, I was going to ask AZLawyer about that one on the legal thread. Apparently they need to be merged, or else claim one or the other, but with both, merged into one.

 

[logicalgirl]

Wait...forgery is not an aggravating factor, but it sure as heck isn't mitigating!

statutory mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase?

Sorry - was misleading - should have finished my sentence.

 

[logicalgirl]

Interesting wording in the notice. "........the State MAY argue the application of the following aggravating circumstances at the trial of this matter.

May is BBM. They are not saying they ARE going to argue all the factors they listed, just that they may. I wonder if that is normal for this type of notice or not?

Jeff Ashton giggling as he typed out that list - MAY - singing nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah..nyah..............:innocent:

 

[Soju]

ITA with those who are predicting the defense will whine about this list. I'm expecting JB to have both a problem with the word "may", and the fact that the SA isn't spelling out their specific methods for applying each factor. They're going to want the SA to explain exactly how they plan to argue 'cruel and heinous' when the ME stated cause of death as homicide by undetermined means. The duct tape is the elephant in the room. The defense is terrified of it, and that's what all of this wrangling and whining is about, IMO.

 

[AZlawyer]

statutory mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase?

Sorry - was misleading - should have finished my sentence.

I haven't read through the list of statutory mitigating circumstances, but "mitigating" in this context means "stuff that makes the defendant look better or at least more pitiful so you don't want to give them the death penalty"--so I'm pretty sure being convicted of forgery is not listed as a mitigating circumstance.

 

[logicalgirl]

I haven't read through the list of statutory mitigating circumstances, but "mitigating" in this context means "stuff that makes the defendant look better or at least more pitiful so you don't want to give them the death penalty"--so I'm pretty sure being convicted of forgery is not listed as a mitigating circumstance.

Does the SA say anything during the Stat/mit circumstance stage of the sentencing phase?

If not when would they bring that up? Or do they?

 

[eaglemom]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.htm

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.

(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.

(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

 

[DaughterAlice]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

. . . . and this is why we adore you! You are so very clever.