Casey Is NOT Safe From Double Jeopardy Laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You should probably bring this to the Questions for our Verified Lawyers thread,but my understanding is, after a conviction (guilty),if a case is overturned,it's as if the first case is erased .If their is an acquital ( not guilty) then there is nothing to overturn.You can't try the person again for the same crime after an acqutal.

Indeed this is the question that was asked over and over again in a hundred different ways on the Lawyers thread and the answer was always the same. It's over, really, really over. Even if she confessed and wrote a book about it she can't be tried again for the same crime.
 
I would certainly vote for it to change.
It's obscene to see someone get away with the murder of a little child.

But if it were changed now, would it apply to ICA?
 
The verdict is a hard pill to swallow. I take solace in the fact that she will never live a normal life. I won't waste my time and energy hating Casey Anthony. She is not worth it.
 
People have asked on the lawyers thread, there are answers over there. Casey did not commit any federal crimes, apparently.

Actually, she lied to FBI agent Nick Savage, and it's on tape. I bet they could dig up more instances of federal crimes at the hands of KC, if they really wanted to.
 
I haven't read it yet, but am going to now. I still believe that there must be some charges that can be lodged against her and it wouldn't cross double jeopardy. Something having to do with obstruction of justice, or along those lines.
If these jurors felt so sick re: their verdict, then someone, at least one should have had the Chutzpah to hang the jury and give it to one who wouldn't have a problem doing their job.
But IMO we will hear about her again, you can't be a cold blooded murderess with ice running through your veins and not get into trouble again. Not with all of the theft and lies to boot, WTH we're they thinking?
Talk about a MORALLY BANKRUPT individual, Wow :sick:

I agree with every point you make here.
 
I do not respect the decision in the CA trial, but nor do I agree with changing double jeopardy laws. I do however support *some* sort of change after seeing this travesty of justice, but personally I believe it should lie more in the juror front.

I totally agree ... the problem with this case was NOT the case the prosecution argued at all ... as we all know it was the jury and deliberation process that failed miserably

I would like to see new jury laws ... ones being proposed to prevent jurors from profiting is a step in the right direction for stealth jurors ... IMO we need to revamp jury selection for high profile cases for one thing

But IMO there needs to be more education of the jurors prior to trials ... maybe a day or two going over the charges and the laws governing them ... then requiring a test of comprehension ? Something has to be done, most of these jurors didn't even understand the instructions they were given

Also, there needs to be checks along the way during trial to insure that jurors are not "deciding" the case before it's conclusion by talking among each other ... I've been wondering how closely they were monitored during breaks and times when they were removed from the courtroom ... It seems to me they weren't watched closely at all and discussed the case as it went along ...

IMO jury deliberations should be video taped and videos sealed ... the state should have the same rights as the defense when it comes to stealth jurors, juror misconduct, or juror tampering ... not sure how that would be implemented without opening a can of worms but certainly something like a grand jury or panel of judges could decide if there's enough evidence for it to be heard by a higher court ... I dunno ... but something has to be done

This case has set a very bad precedence for how to get away with capital crimes ...

<end rant>
:twocents:
 
He died in a fall at home in 2008. Cut himself on a glass coffee table, stumbled through the house, and died alone.

amazing! karma always finds a way. Looks like he died a slow death too...I googled it
 
I think it's time for everyone to stop and take a deep breath. Yes, Casey Anthony is a<modsnip> who in the very least should be locked away for life. But to amend the bill of rights in an attempt to extract revenge against her defies common sense.


Think of the consequences of giving the state an endless supply of mulligans to use at their leisure. Rule of law and the role of the jury would mean nothing. Quality of work by the prosecution and the police would suffer. Presumption of innocence would be no more and bias of the jury would be impacted since guilt might be assumed if an individual is tried again and again and again. Burden of proof would be a thing of the past. The opportunity for abuse of such a power is mind-boggling.


Protection from double jeopardy, along with presumption of innocence, speedy trial etc, was written into the bill of rights because the founders realized that the state, with its superior resources was capable of using its power to trample the rights of those it didn't like -- political dissidents*, religious minorities*, etc.


As lousy as it is, Casey Anthony is forever barred from prosecution for any of the offenses arising from the charges contained in the indictment including child neglect etc. As hard as it might be, it's time to let it go.
In a way, I agree with you. But I have read about other cases when the federal government has stepped in...so I'm not yet 100% sure that can't happen. Not saying it will happen...but can't say it's an impossibility. The Federal gov't often steps in (think Mafia) when the State can't get a conviction. Are they trying to trample on the rights of the crime families? Maybe...think they may believe it's for the "greater good". Who knows what the federal gov't would think worthy of pursuing. They seem to be spending a whole lot of effort of late going after a baseball pitcher who allegedly lied to them about steroid use. Big whoop. JMHO
PS- and I personally know of a case where the State couldn't prove the guy's involvement in a murder (former cop, no less). Later, the Feds went after him for insurance and mail fraud (a federal offense). You just never know how badly they may want someone to be held accountable for wrongdoing.
 
In a way, I agree with you. But I have read about other cases when the federal government has stepped in...so I'm not yet 100% sure that can't happen. Not saying it will happen...but can't say it's an impossibility. The Federal gov't often steps in (think Mafia) when the State can't get a conviction. Are they trying to trample on the rights of the crime families? Maybe...think they may believe it's for the "better good". Who knows what the federal gov't would think worthy of pursuing. They seem to be spending a whole lot of effort of late going after a baseball pitcher who allegedly lied to them about steroid use. Big whoop. JMHO
PS- and I personally know of a case where the State couldn't prove the guy's involvement in a murder (former cop, no less). Later, the Feds went after him for insurance and mail fraud (a federal offense). You just never know how badly they may want someone to be held accountable for wrongdoing.

I really hope so! they sure wasted resources based on her lies. I also hope the IRS comes after her as well. they are relentless.
 
In researching this old case I noticed a number of similarities to the Casey Anthony case.

Mel Ignatow forced Brenda Schaefer to strip, photographed her in suggestive positions, raped, sodomized and beat her before killing her with chloroform.
PT alleged that chloroform was used on Caylee.


Former girlfriend, MaryAnn Shore led the investigators to the grave site, where Schaefer's badly decomposed body had been buried for over a year. The autopsy showed she had been abused, but any DNA evidence, from blood and semen, had decomposed.
Caylee's body was badly decomposed after lying in a flooded woods for 6 months.

One section of the recorded conversation between Ignatow and Shore contained the following dialogue by Ignatow: "That place we dug is not shallow. Beside that one area right by where that safe is does not have any trees by it." In court, the jury decided that one word on the tape was "safe", not "site", as the police believed. This led the jurors to conclude that the discussion involved a buried safe.
Jurors got hung up on single pieces of evidence instead of putting it all together as a unit.


Furthermore, Shore, the prosecution's star witness, wore a tiny miniskirt to court and laughed during her testimony, undermining her credibility in the eyes of the jury. The defense argued that Shore, not Ignatow, had killed Schaefer.
Casey's DT undermined and slandered witnesses. When GA became angry because JB badgered him on the witness stand jurors took his reaction to mean guilt.


In light of these considerations and their own desire to get the trial over with before the coming Christmas holiday, the jury acquitted Ignatow.
Reports are that someone on the CA jury had a cruise planned a few days later during the week following July 4th. They took less than 11 hours to come to a decision of 'Not Guilty'. In that short time they ate meals, took breaks, and were supposed to go over their Instructions as well as the evidence.


The judge was so embarrassed by this verdict given, that he took the unusual step of writing a letter of apology to the Schaefer family. Schaefer's parents died before the trial began. According to some family and friends, their deaths were premature due to the heartbreak and stress of Schaefer's murder.
Casey ripped her family apart on the witness stand and I believe that GA and CA will divorce due to the stress.


Ignatow was brought to trial for perjury in his grand jury testimony. Knowing that he could not be retried for the murder because of double jeopardy, Ignatow confessed in court at his perjury trial. He turned to Schaefer's brothers in court and said that he had killed her, but that she had died peacefully.
One can only hope Casey winds up back in jail for something.

Ignatow served five years of an eight year sentence for perjury. The state later prosecuted him on perjury charges for testimony he gave in a case against Schaefer's employer for threatening to kill Ignatow if he didn't tell where Schaefer was. He was sentenced to nine years for that perjury charge.
Casey was only convited of Lying To LE and will walk out of jail with 'time served'. She may be appealing even that light sentence!

Mel Ignatow was released from prison for the second time in December 2006. He returned yet again to Louisville, living in a home four miles from the house where he murdered Brenda Schaefer.
Though I'm sure Casey will never return to live in Florida, she may rekindle the relationship with CA.


Whew! This was very time consuming. I hope there are no typos!
Wow! Just wow!
 
The U.S. Department of Justice would make a decision about whether she has committed a federal crime, not the State of Florida. Murdering your daughter isn't a federal crime in itself. I've seen posters mention lying to FBI agents and violating Caylee's civil rights as possible federal crimes she may have committed. I'm not holding my breath.
...but I would think it would have to be brought to their attention by the State. Heck, I've even thought about bringing it to their attention!!
 
We have a case in the UK. A young boy call Steven Lawrence was murdered in 1993, he was 19. There were a group of 5 youths all suspected of murdering him. 3 of the 5 suspects were acquitted at trial. But due to FRESH and VIABLE evidence they can be tried again. Even though the crime was committed before the double jeopardy laws changed. It has always been well known that these youths murdered Stephen, why should they get away with murder if there is new evidence not available at the time of the investigation. Forensics are advancing all the time.

Not every case could or should be retried, only cases where there is FRESH, VIABLE evidence.
 
Another 2 cases snipped from Wikipedia

On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. Twice he was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted. Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and raping her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.


On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being found not guilty of the same offence, that of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995. Weston's first trial was in 1996, when the jury found him not guilty. Following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009 – Thompson's blood on Weston's boots – Weston was arrested in 2009 and tried for a second time in December 2010, when he was found guilty of Thompson's murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment to serve a minimum of 13 years.[25]
 
We have a case in the UK. A young boy call Steven Lawrence was murdered in 1993, he was 19. There were a group of 5 youths all suspected of murdering him. 3 of the 5 suspects were acquitted at trial. But due to FRESH and VIABLE evidence they can be tried again. Even though the crime was committed before the double jeopardy laws changed. It has always been well known that these youths murdered Stephen, why should they get away with murder if there is new evidence not available at the time of the investigation. Forensics are advancing all the time.

Not every case could or should be retried, only cases where there is FRESH, VIABLE evidence.

I agree with you that a case should only be retried again if LE finds "fresh, viable evidence" such as DNA or a confession. I also think that the DA should be required to get permission from the Supreme Court of the state they are in, before they can go for a second trial. Hypothetically, if double jeopardy was allowed in the US right now, I don't think Casey's case would qualify for a second trial.
 
I agree with you that a case should only be retried again if LE finds "fresh, viable evidence" such as DNA or a confession. I also think that the DA should be required to get permission from the Supreme Court of the state they are in, before they can go for a second trial. Hypothetically, if double jeopardy was allowed in the US right now, I don't think Casey's case would qualify for a second trial.

I don't think Casey's case would qualify for a second trial at this stage. All the evidence they had was made available at the time of the trial, some was not allowed in court, like the video of Casey hyperventilating. I am not sure if that could be used again in a double jeopardy case because it was already available at the time of the first trial. It would only be new evidence or a confession. So Casey would probably never be retried because I don't think they could discover new evidence now and she will never confess. IMO
 
Actually, she lied to FBI agent Nick Savage, and it's on tape. I bet they could dig up more instances of federal crimes at the hands of KC, if they really wanted to.
The only thing I heard KC say on that tape that could be construed as a lie is as a mother I feel she is alive, then they waited for JB to show up.
 
The only thing I heard KC say on that tape that could be construed as a lie is as a mother I feel she is alive, then they waited for JB to show up.

That was a lie. She knew Caylee was dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
3,870
Total visitors
4,030

Forum statistics

Threads
591,532
Messages
17,954,061
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top