Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by ShouldBWorking, Jul 5, 2011.
OMG!! What civil rights? How about the right to "Life, liberty..."
I don't know if I agree with ^^ 100%. The jury made a decision of not guilty. True. They have not stated categorically whether they think she is innocent. The American legal system functions on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty wo/men off than to convict 1 innocent person. She could very well, be part of that 'guilty' equation. She is convicted of lying to police. She is GUILTY of not reporting the disappearance of her child. She is guilty of a cover-up of the death of her child. She is guilty of callous and wanton behaviour post Caylee's disappearance. Those facts and the resonance of her own defense team referring to her as "lying-S**t" will stick for the rest of her life.
I will practice my right to be discerning.
I was reading somewhere else that they may be able to charge her with felony obstruction of justice which carries a maximum of 20 years. I know she was already convicted of providing false information to LE, but is obstruction of justice the same thing?
Ahh! I can see how that would appeal as a probability here.
I remember that too. here's a link:
there is a greater chance of the Feds going after her for tax evasion, or possibly some sort of fiscal fraud regarding all the ABC payments. I am sure the feds have no desire to step into the murder mess.
Except for the three pieces of duct tape over her face. I'm sorry, I don't buy the drowning scenario at all. That duct tape rules out all possibility of accidental death for me. Obviously, MOO.
True, yet everyone in this country pays the salaries of every federal employee who wasted there time and our tax dollars in the search for a "missing child" that was known by her own mother to be already dead..."Died in an accidental drowning on June 16, 2008"...just hours before her mother went to a video store and rented movies to watch with her boyfriend and to enjoy a marathon "cuddle session"... which lasted through the next afternoon when she drove to her parents home and knocked on their neighbor's door to borrow his shovel.
I believe a wrongful death civil suit needs to be brought about by relatives of the deceased. That would be Casey's own family, which I doubt they would do. Now, IF they were able to find the bio dad of Caylee or his family, THEY could file a wrongful death civil suit against her, just as the Goldmans did in the OJ mess.
I agree with most of what you are saying, really. The fact that the child is never coming back is a punishment for the entire family. If Casey is worth anything, it WILL haunt her. But there are other children to help. I know it is frustrating, and who knows, maybe I am wrong, and further action can be taken.
If a person has violated more than one law with only one criminal act, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies in some cases, and in some cases it does not. For example, if a person was tried and convicted of assault, he could not later be tried, using the exact same evidence, for murder. He could however, be tried later for murder, if new evidence came to light in addition to the evidence from the first trial. He would be tried for two separate crimes, with two separate sets of evidence. If he was tried for both crimes, in two separate trials, using the same evidence, it would be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, because he was tried twice with the same evidence.
This is known as the Blockburger test and it is derived from Blockburger v. United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not."
Just some interesting reading for those interested. It can be done, but rarely. The feds would have to have a vested interest as they have strict guidelines.
Finally, double jeopardy does not prevent a separate sovereignty from prosecuting again for the same offense. In Heath v. Alabama (1985), the Supreme Court held that federal prosecution is not barred by a previous state prosecution for the same offense.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/double-jeopardy#ixzz1RL82HSzs
Successive or dual federal prosecutions based on "substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior proceeding" are governed by DOJ's Petite Policy, which lays out three requirements for a federal prosecution:
[F]irst, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact
The second element is where a lot of the action occurs. Under the policy, federal interests have presumptively been served by a state prosecution, regardless of outcome. That presumption may be overcome based on a number of factors, including indications that nullification occurred in the prior prosecution or where the state prosecution failed on an element that would not have to be proven in the federal prosecution. The presumption also may be overcome, regardless of the outcome in the state prosecution, where:
first, the alleged violation involves a compelling federal interest, particularly one implicating an enduring national priority; second, the alleged violation involves egregious conduct, including that which threatens or causes loss of life, severe economic or physical harm, or the impairment of the functioning of an agency of the federal government or the due administration of justice; and third, the result in the prior prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved.
Look what happened to Misty Croslin. Why cant the same thing happen here? We can always pray, hope and suggest to the appropriate entities LOL
Hopefully Rick Pleasea or Grandma Shirley would do that. More likely Uncle Rick...
How do you explain the duct tape, the chloroform and the searches on the computer?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every right in the bill of rights she will never be afforded...
hmmmm, lets see... oh i get it, your child drowns and then you throw duct tape on her mouth, double bag her, and throw her away like garbage where animals chew her bones for 6 months and bugs crawl in and out of her and while this is going on you party it up likes there is no tomorrow.... makes sense to me - NOT!
Leonard Padilla's tweet about this topic:
The taking of a persons life is a federal civil rights violation. It does not hurt to try. he federal crime of a civil rights violation is a seperate crime than what the state charged. @marknejame please explain..
Long post from Deck.ly 20 hours ago View on Twitter
Baez tells B Walters what Caylee would have wanted.
Didn't know what thread to put this on.....but it makes me sick that Baez would pretend to know what Caylee would or wouldn't want.
This is the main, main, element of why I think Casey deliberately erased Caylee from this world. Tony said nothing about Casey running down to the parking lot to get Caylee something to eat or drink.
Isn't a shovel one of the items needed to complete the chloroform clean up by dissolving the chemical into the sand in the back yard???????