2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[logicalgirl]

I read Steele here was my interpretation:
1. The Trial Judge may require the prosecution to LIST the aggravating circumstances, and failure to disclose an aggravating circumstance is not a reversible error.

[emphasis added]

2. The Trial Judge made an error by using a "Special Verdict Form" for the sentencing phase (The vote on each aggravating and mitigating circumstance must be listed by the Jury before being summited to the Judge), because the Judge's decision on sentencing must be independent of the Juries.

[emphasis added]

I have a feeling that the latest song and dance from the Defense asking for the "expanded fact sheet" with each of the aggravators is really about their concern that the SA is going to hold back on the "failure to disclose an aggravating factor" - meaning we talk duct tape, duct tape, duct tape, but I think the Defense fears there is something else hiding up LDB's sleeve.

I also believe there is so much evidence out there implicating ICA, the Defense wants to channel what ever energy they expend, on the "biggest" factor, and want the SA to point at it for them, so they are at least prepared.

 

[snoopydoo]

That makes so much sense. Thank you.

I guess an added advantage of backing the state into this corner with this DP motion is getting a hint on how they will prosecute the case?

I don't imagine the defense wants to fight the big picture, circumstantial case. The case the defense would like to fight is the one the SA laid out when the prosecutor stood up in open court describing how Casey placed the duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose while she was looking up into the eyes of her mother. I think the defense would like to have the prosecution attempt to prove such a scenario.

Baez may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but the last thing he wants to do is have the jury looking at the big picture: details, details, details… if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.

 

[snoopydoo]

Lyon's position is that the prosecution is overcharging the case, essentially claiming that aggravating factors (i), (l) and (m) were already known when the State decided not to pursue the DP. By the facts then known, without a body the State couldn't determine (d) and (h).

This argument fails under Florida law.

{sorry for the poor snipping skills. Mine in italics, yours in bold.}

It would be an act of bad faith on behalf of the SA if they filed an intent not to pursue the DP, then went on to seek the DP, without anything of additional evidentiary value coming forth. They said as much in the DP filing:

"The State of Florida hereby notifies the Defendant and the Court that, based upon additional information that has become available since the waiver of intent to seek the penalty of death filed on December 5, 2008, sufficient aggravating circumstances exist to justify the imposition of the Death Penalty pursuant to Florida Statute 921.141, as to this Defendant in this case. Therefore, the state will be seeking the imposition of the Death Penalty, should the Defendant be convicted in the above referenced matter."

Lyon is arguing that the duct tape is not per se the additional evidence. It's the inference that the SA made from the duct tape, namely that the duct tape is the cause of death, which the SA is citing as additional evidence that provides sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify…

An inference is not evidence, however, unless it is substantiated. Which seems to be what the defense is driving at with all this. Without being substantiated, an inference is nothing more than speculation carrying no more evidentiary value than when the prosecutor inferred that Caylee was looking into her mother's eyes when Casey methodically placed the duct tape over her nose and mouth.


We'll see how the Judge rules on all this, though. I'm curious to see if he won't order the SA to clarify the "may argue," to something closer to "attempt to prove."