Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Kimster, Jun 20, 2011.
(This thread is quite long so I didn't go through every question, please excuse me if my question has been asked previously)
This is hypothetical, of course but.. say the whole Anthony family had knowledge of what happened to Caylee.. and sometime in the future, something comes out, perhaps by Casey herself, since she believes she is safe due to double jeopardy, from any prosecution, and she says something to the fact that she did have knowledge and her parents took part in helping her plot a scheme to get out of trouble. My question to you is: Having knowing with what she was charged with already, could a totally different charge be brought up for a felony charge of conspiracy or accomplice to murder or even plotting to hide evidence or anything along those lines be charged to her? Is that separate charges from those that she was charged with and therefore seen different in the eyes of the law?
For instance.. if it 'was' an accident and she has information that 'someone' did the burial (if that's what they want to call it.. but never reported it, then conspired with her family to hide the facts surrounding that knowledge of evidence destroyed.. would that be a whole other charge and not double jeopardy? OR if she committed the murder herself *cough* which she cannot be charged with again.. but also conspired with others to hide evidence or purposely mislead and proof later comes out of those facts could charges be brought about separately on those basis? Just asking because they are totally separate charges than what she was charged with, or so I think
Also.. Just out of my own curiosity, why is it that if a court proceeding is about getting to the truth of the matter.. why is it that so much of the truth is withheld from being entered into the court for the jury to have full knowledge of what is going on? Shouldn't they get the full story then decide for themselves with all of the evidence, good and bad, based on everything, what is best? To get a full picture instead of bits and pieces of a puzzle, constantly stepping in and out and getting totally confused as to what they can and can't take in to consideration?
I've followed this case as much as possible since Caylee was missing and most people here know more than I do and what's pathetic is.. I know way more than any juror that sat in that courtroom.. I find that quite a shame.. they came out half clueless it seems, and it's hard to blame them for that, because they got hogwashed by so much BS instead of facts and evidence alone. It was as if Baez was starring in his own show rather than presenting valid facts half the time to me, and they were entertained more by him than the prosecution.. and the Emmy goes to. That doesn't seem to be how our justice system is suppose to work, or is it the sign of the times? *sigh*
Maybe if I ever need a lawyer, I should check the tv guide instead of the yellow pages. (sarcasm) sorry, no offense to any of you.. I just still don't understand how this could have happened. It just seems that a lot of good evidence wasn't included, good witnesses were ignored, and some evidence they may have had, they didn't wait to get because they were in such a rush to get to trial.
Just wanted to pop in and thank all you lawyers for being so patient and answering so many questions. Lawyers= priceless ! :blowkiss:
My concern is that the jury discussed the case prior to deliberations.
An alternate juror (the young guy), who wasn't supposed to EVER deliberate anything, stated during the Dateline show..and I quote:
Each question that we had from the get go: Where's the weapon? or the chloroform? where was the body first held? or who was involved?
from the get go
This sounds like jurors discussed the case when they weren't supposed to, and as a result one or two strong personalities were influencing the others all along.
Can they get a mistrial after the fact if it is shown that jurors didn't follow the rules?
What happens if ICA does not show up to her July19th depo with John Morgan?
First, huge thanks to the lawyers here for helping us understand and get through this.
My question is how this trial effects future use of the new science.
The next time a lawyer uses decomp gas air analysis, hair death banding or any of the new science JA brought forth, can they refer to this case as setting that precedence? Or since that side lost does that negate this advance.
I don't know whether this has already been answered or if this bell has already been rung, but here goes. Could CA and GA still file charges against KC for stealing from them? I hope this is not a stupid question, but I have wondering about this and I haven't seen the answer.
ICa did lie to the FBI
I know I am beating the dead horse here, but what if anything does that change re: everyone's surety that the FBI cannot prosecute?
Thanks for asking I wondered the same thing. I bet they will if ICA doesn't share her windfall but wondered if they can.
It is not only that, but I strongly believe that they are still looking for the answers too. I don't think that they would let her go anywhere. IMO
Question for AZ lawyer: What are the ramifications IF she does not show up for the deposition in the civil case?
Either Casey has another CON coming, or she made a mistake that will eventually surface.
There could be a civil arrest warrant issued.
Thank you. They did speak to her for just a few minutes the day she was arrested for murder, while they were waiting for Jose. They were not questioning her, because she had counsel. The only thing she said that was a lie in that few minutes was that she felt in her gut that Caylee was still alive. No one asked her--she just said it.
There is no way the feds would prosecute for this. First, as I said, IMO this was not a case within federal jurisdiction as required by the statute. Second, this is not an easily provable lie like "Caylee called me on the phone on July 15." She could defend by saying "I was in denial and DID feel in my gut that Caylee was alive."
They could file a police report, but I believe the statute of limitations for actually prosecuting the crime has passed.
Yes, the next time that science is used in court, this case can be referenced as a precedent for allowing the experts to testify. The ultimate verdict doesn't change the fact that the testimony was allowed.
No, juror misconduct cannot undo the verdict.
Double jeopardy would still apply in all the situations you mentioned.
I really don't understand this idea that good evidence and witnesses were excluded and/or not obtained by the SA. What evidence are we talking about here?
Since J. Cheney Mason stated that Casey will not be on probation is Richard Hornsby incorrect on his "http://blog.richardhornsby.com/category/casey-anthony/" blog ? Probation is tolled while incarcerated in Florida. Who would or should point that out to the State?
Also AZlawyer, Richard Hornsby points out that the HHJP may have made a mistake by not subtracting the 412 day for the check fraud, but no do-overs at this point on this.
I think RH is correct--the probation SHOULD NOT have begun until she was released. However, it appears from news stories that were printed back when the check fraud sentence was handed down that she actually DID complete her probation in jail. Stupid and pointless, but it looks like that's what happened.
I don't think HHJP made a mistake. He mentioned the check fraud time, so he remembered it, but he allowed that time to count toward this sentence as well. So I think it was a decision made on purpose, not a mistake. I disagree with the decision, BTW. There's no reason her check fraud sentence should have run concurrently with her sentence for lying to LE.
Question for AZlawyer..
Here in California, a very good friend of mine from high school was convicted of murder. That conviction was overturned due to juror misconduct, however, the sheriff was standing outside on the sidewalk & re-arrested her as soon as she walked out the door. She was again convicted at the second trial.
My question is, why can a guilty verdict be overturned due to juror misconduct, but not a not guilty verdict?
(If it were to be proven that there was indeed juror misconduct in ICA's case)