2015.12.29 Discovery Docs - Batch 2

[AZlawyer]

AmazonRain, morally ITA, support your outrage and everyone else who feels the same way. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but IMO it is important to point out the FL statute exempts AW from being charged as an accessory after the fact. I'm only continuing this discussion because 1. I think the statute is relevant, 2. statutory exemption may explain why LE has not charged, and (most importantly) 3. I want to provide the legal context for my opinion.

Immunity provision of Fla. Statute § 777.03:
"Accessory after the fact — Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding seven years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars."

"with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment" IMO even if AW wasn't married to CWW and thus exempted under the FL statute, a prosecutor wouldn't charge where the facts show AW cooperated with LE without counsel (no legal obligation to speak with LE) and despite denying knowledge (not a crime), she did not give false statements to LE. Also, CWW told Tshomaker to get a restraining order against LE. I'm assuming he said something similar to his wife, but AW still voluntarily spoke with LE.

More FL specific legalese:

"[under the peculiar wording of the Florida Statute] to charge one as an accessory after the fact, it is incumbent upon the State to establish by its evidence that the defendant is not within the prohibited relationship outlined in the Statute" https://casetext.com/case/brooks-v-state-228

"In upholding Florida’s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized “society’s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures” and applauded the legislature’s decision to “confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.”:scared:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T... after the fact murder florida spouse&f=false

MO may have different rules, and I don't know if those rules would apply because AW was in MO, or rather the FL statute applies because the act occurred in FL...but my brain hurts. AZLawyer, your wisdom would be greatly appreciated.lease:

LASTLY (I promise) I sincerely apologize if this post is way too much detail, and I've wasted anyone's time.

I think Florida law would clearly apply, since she lied to Florida LE about a Florida murder. But I agree that the accessory after the fact statute is not applicable to her. Now, what about the statute Casey Anthony was convicted under--for lying to LE? That one doesn't seem to have a spousal exemption.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0837/0837.html

 

[creepingskills]

I referenced this statute a few days ago re ‘accessory after the fact’.

According to FL Statute 777.03(1)(a) and (c):
The family immunity provision only applies if the offender has committed a third degree felony.
There doesn’t appear to be family immunity when the crime of the offender is a “capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony”.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0777/Sections/0777.03.html

The 2015 Florida Statutes
777.03 Accessory after the fact.—

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

^^ emphasis by me

Yep, statute was amended in 2006. Didn't see any recent case law using the broader statue, so I glossed right over that amendment.

CS/SB 730 — Jason A. Gucwa Act
by Criminal Justice Committee and Senators Lynn, Aronberg, and Crist
Current law provides for immunity from prosecution for accessory after the fact for certain family members of a felony offender. The bill removes this immunity except as to third degree felonies committed by the offender/family member.
Regardless of the familial relation, if the offender committed a capital, life, first, or second degree felony, and the statutory requirements are met (maintaining or assisting or aiding, and knowledge of the commission of the crime), any person, including a family member, can be charged as an accessory after the fact. This amendment to current law is effected in the newly- created paragraph (c) of subsection 777.03(1), F.S.

 

[creepingskills]

I think Florida law would clearly apply, since she lied to Florida LE about a Florida murder. But I agree that the accessory after the fact statute is not applicable to her. Now, what about the statute Casey Anthony was convicted under--for lying to LE? That one doesn't seem to have a spousal exemption.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0837/0837.html

Thanks AZ! My brain is fried after trying to figure out the intent of the 2006 legislative amendmenthoh: but I wonder if the "Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true" language is the difference, LE might have had an easier time showing that Casey did not believe her own BS?

 

[Deleted member 159541]

AZ - please comment. I am reading Florida statute to read that if the crime is a more serious felony (like murder) the protection does not apply. The spousal protection only applies to 777.03 (1) (a) a third degree felony not 777.03 (c) - so AW is not protected and could be charged if she knew of the crime (which I believe she did). She can also be charged with the third degree felony of perjury. I'm also researching obstruction.

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.
(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

 

[No it's not]

Well, I am not sure, when AW and CWW merged their households. Since the murder was planned in advance, CWW may have used her communication device(s) to discuss such plan without her knowledge before they were married. Just a thought.

-Nin

*And yes, AW may NOT be protected. In that case, my post would be irrelevant

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ - please comment. I am reading Florida statute to read that if the crime is a more serious felony (like murder) the protection does not apply. The spousal protection only applies to 777.03 (1) (a) a third degree felony not 777.03 (c) - so AW is not protected and could be charged if she knew of the crime (which I believe she did). She can also be charged with the third degree felony of perjury. I'm also researching obstruction.

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.
(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Yes, it appears the spousal exemption doesn't apply where one is assisting in a more serious crime. Normally, though, "accessory after the fact" would be used against someone like T Sh, who actually helped dispose of evidence, rather than someone like AW, who insisted that her husband had said he was in a different city in Florida at the time (waiving her marital communication privilege on that issue BTW). Her major lies (that we know of at this point!) were about what SHE had previously said to her mom, etc., right? Not really providing any sort of alibi for CWW? I think "providing false info to LE" is much more applicable in her case.

ETA: If she was driving the attempted-getaway car, that would be "accessory after the fact" material, although normally that would be used only as a threat to get the real bad guy to sign a plea deal. ("If you plead guilty to a lesser charge, we won't prosecute your wife as an accessory after the fact. You want your kids to grow up in foster care?")

ETA2: To clarify, I don't see her lie about "CWW said he was in Titusville" as any kind of alibi. In fact, it HURTS her husband's defense, because it shows he was lying about where he was going, which suggests he had something to hide.

 

[creepingskills]

Well, I am not sure, when AW and CWW merged their households. Since the murder was planned in advance, CWW may have used her communication device(s) to discuss such plan without her knowledge before they were married. Just a thought.

-Nin

*And yes, AW may NOT be protected. In that case, my post would be irrelevant

In your scenario, I don't see an act or intent from AW that rises to accessory before, or after the fact. The exception only matters when the rule applies, and FWIW before I thought the exemption applied here, (IMO) the rule did not. When you take the facts currently released with the case law and compare the facts/outcomes, it would be a stretch to charge AW with accessory. :moo:

 

[creepingskills]

Yes, it appears the spousal exemption doesn't apply where one is assisting in a more serious crime. Normally, though, "accessory after the fact" would be used against someone like T Sh, who actually helped dispose of evidence, rather than someone like AW, who insisted that her husband had said he was in a different city in Florida at the time (waiving her marital communication privilege on that issue BTW). Her major lies (that we know of at this point!) were about what SHE had previously said to her mom, etc., right? Not really providing any sort of alibi for CWW? I think "providing false info to LE" is much more applicable in her case.

ETA: If she was driving the attempted-getaway car, that would be "accessory after the fact" material, although normally that would be used only as a threat to get the real bad guy to sign a plea deal. ("If you plead guilty to a lesser charge, we won't prosecute your wife as an accessory after the fact. You want your kids to grow up in foster care?")

ETA2: To clarify, I don't see her lie about "CWW said he was in Titusville" as any kind of alibi. In fact, it HURTS her husband's defense, because it shows he was lying about where he was going, which suggests he had something to hide.

BBM. Great catch! I hope AW's waiver on that issue was/is useful to the prosecution.

 

[susnoat]

In your scenario, I don't see an act or intent from AW that rises to accessory before, or after the fact. The exception only matters when the rule applies, and FWIW before I thought the exemption applied here, (IMO) the rule did not. When you take the facts currently released with the case law and compare the facts/outcomes, it would be a stretch to charge AW with accessory. :moo:

AW had this figured out on the long "death ride" to FL. If not sooner.

 

[shutterrrbug]

Exactly. It hurts when I see people say they feel empathy for AW. This is a lot of what I have been trying to say. This family has been the recipients of a lot of bad things, yes. BUT they have brought this upon themselves with their poor choices and bad actions. They have hurt, taken advantage of, and altered the lives of a lot of people themselves. They are reaping their own karma. They are not just poor victims. They have also been the victimizers.

Are you speaking of the whole family or just AW? Can you clarify? Why does it hurt for others to feel empathy for a woman like AW? Empathy and sympathy are two different things.

How are they victimizers? Nothing has been properly introduced to that effect.

 

[SeesSeas]

Are you speaking of the whole family or just AW? Can you clarify? Why does it hurt for others to feel empathy for a woman like AW? Empathy and sympathy are two different things.

How are they victimizers? Nothing has been properly introduced to that effect.

Welcome shutterrrbug !!
:Welcome1:

 

[beach]

Are you speaking of the whole family or just AW? Can you clarify? Why does it hurt for others to feel empathy for a woman like AW? Empathy and sympathy are two different things.

How are they victimizers? Nothing has been properly introduced to that effect.

:hug:

 

[creepingskills]

AW had this figured out on the long "death ride" to FL. If not sooner.

AW had the murderous plan figured out? I don't want to ask too much, but I am interested to know whether AW had knowledge prior to the murder. If so, why would she tell KM the original story? Wrongly assumed KM would accept version 2, the lie?

 

[susnoat]

AW had the murderous plan figured out? I don't want to ask too much, but I am interested to know whether AW had knowledge prior to the murder. If so, why would she tell KM the original story? Wrongly assumed KM would accept version 2, the lie?

And counterpoint: why would she lie to her mom and others and works so hard to change the story IF she hadn't figured it out at some point? No, I do not think she had knowledge prior to events occuring.

 

[beach]

AW had this figured out on the long "death ride" to FL. If not sooner.

Unless she told you that herself, you have absolutely no way of knowing that is a fact, so please don't present it as such.

And if she did tell you that, you need to be talking to SMS not posting it here.

 

[mikeinmo]

AW had the murderous plan figured out? I don't want to ask too much, but I am interested to know whether AW had knowledge prior to the murder. If so, why would she tell KM the original story? Wrongly assumed KM would accept version 2, the lie?

It is possible that AW was trying to convince KM that she did not hear correctly and KM would agree, but she did not agree and the CI backed her up

 

[susnoat]

Are you speaking of the whole family or just AW? Can you clarify? Why does it hurt for others to feel empathy for a woman like AW? Empathy and sympathy are two different things.

How are they victimizers? Nothing has been properly introduced to that effect.

I know this family. I know of their past. <modsnip> I will admit it is refreshing to finally see KW doing the right thing. I assure you that hasn't always been the case. There is always hope for redemption.

 

[Dukester2]

IMO, There are always several ways to look at situation. I believe that possibly the previous hardships that AW has endured makes her very vulnerable to love and attention. Some people find it hard to not believe in the person that has saved them from pain, filled missing holes, completed them. Maybe she was in the dark just as much as TS was, wanting to believe her husband. Just like MS and TS family supported MS. He had them fooled, makes me wonder how many people have been fooled through this whole mess...

 

[creepingskills]

And counterpoint: why would she lie to her mom and others and works so hard to change the story IF she hadn't figured it out at some point? No, I do not think she had knowledge prior to events occuring.

We are on the same side of the point. My point was that if AW had prior knowledge, she wouldn't have told KM or told KM the second version, the lie, from the start.

 

[SeesSeas]

IMO, There are always several ways to look at situation. I believe that possibly the previous hardships that AW has endured makes her very vulnerable to love and attention. Some people find it hard to not believe in the person that has saved them from pain, filled missing holes, completed them. Maybe she was in the dark just as much as TS was, wanting to believe her husband. Just like MS and TS family supported MS. He had them fooled, makes me wonder how many people have been fooled through this whole mess...

Welcome Dukester2 !!
:Welcome1: