Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by JBean, May 1, 2009.

  1. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is for discussion of mitigating and/or aggravating factors in general.

    Not in depth analysis of each factor, but rather how it works and what might be available to the defense or prosecution in the event of a conviction that warrants the DP.
    Since KC will most likely maintain her innocence even in the event of a guilty verdict, how will that impact what strategies are available to the defense?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. sleutherontheside

    sleutherontheside Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    That reminds me of a lecture AL did in Kentucky where she asked if the public defenders in the lecture.....whether they had a doctor that would find a table fit for trial.....

    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss48591.xml
     
  4. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only this issue,imo. I don't understand how any of these things can be argued if KC maintains that she is not only not guilty but also innocent.
     
  5. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly!!! And if she were to do so, claim to be innocent and be judged guilty what makes AL think that during the sentencing phase they can bring this up. As a juror I would feel it's just another lie.
     
  6. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe this is like the OJ Book: "IF I did it"

    The defense can argue that she didn't do it, but IF she did it, all these mitigating factors could come into play. LOL
     
  7. Searchfortruth

    Searchfortruth New Member

    Messages:
    5,971
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This seems to be common practice in many trials. The defense argues their client is not guilty, then after the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, the defense argues why their client should be spared the harshest punishment. I could never understand how the same jury could be expected to believe the sentencing arguments (sad childhood, mental illness, etc...) after the defense has tried to sell the not guilty argument, unsuccessfully.
     
  8. Searchfortruth

    Searchfortruth New Member

    Messages:
    5,971
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's pretty good, I think I'll remember it for future use.

    I can understand how it would be difficult for the defense to argue the "my client is not guilty" line to the same jury that convicted said client. It would be like saying you are wrong in your decision to the jury, which no attorney would want to do.

    I have seen, in many cases, where the defense uses a different lawyer to make the sentencing phase arguments as opposed to the lawyer used in the guilt phase (the one that failed). I imagine this is done to present a different (and hopefully more believable) attorney to the jury.
     
  9. believe09

    believe09 Active Member

    Messages:
    28,114
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think that ******'s post is part and parcel the defense strategy for the Caylee Anthony case. Good to know that it has a legal precedence previously set regarding pigs....
     
  10. 21merc7

    21merc7 New Member

    Messages:
    10,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :rotfl:
     
  11. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We had to have seen this issue in the penalty of the Scott P trial but i can't recall it. What was the argument or mitigating factors against the DP ******,do you remember?I have to go look at the laci threads.
     
  12. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh thanks ******. I was just looking through the Laci forum and I got sidetracked reading some of our old discussion LOL.

    Oh you know I am going to link some of Midnites legal information during the penalty phase.

    Probably good info in here?
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17150&highlight=midnite
     
  13. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok there was some intersting stuff in there. For the first day of the penalty phase it was a parade of character witnesses for Peterson. Mostly don't kill him because he is a good guy.
     
  14. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the main factors they will use for mitigation will be a psychiatric issue, identity confusion, and factors relating to her upbringing.

    If she is convicted I think they will try to continue to hint that Caylee died accidently. That after she died, KC had a psychotic break (and I am not so sure that she didn't), and they will throw in some unwanted pregnancy, forced to have and keep the child, mother position in Caylee's life usurped by CA leaving her confused about her role in the child's life, controlling parent and parents discord during KC's teen years leaving a confused adult unprepared to parent her own child.

    I also think that CA and GA will be cooperative in the process and won't deny the factors.
     
  15. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So do you think they will just paint a picture of someone that had some sort of break from reality and even though she is guilty,she doesn't remember or understand?

    What I am struggling with is exactly how they fight the death penalty while not admitting guilt. That is why I was trying to refernce SP's trial. because as you will recall, he still maintians his innocence but had to come up with reasons why he should not be put to death without denying guilt. KWIM?
     
  16. Horace Finklestein

    Horace Finklestein New Member

    Messages:
    5,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seems like the defense is already taking this route. First Caylee was alive, then once the body was found, there was no evidence linking it to Casey, then after the duct tape, etc was found, Richard/Jess Grund probably did it - THEN, Roy Kronk is blamed...it's all a bunch of nonsense that points to a wiggling, squirming inability to simply tell the truth and stick to it. It seems so reactive and lazy. I know we're not at trial yet, but this is just getting old.

    FWIW, I will be really surprised if Joy Wray isn't accused at some point, given her mental state, and then if that doesn't work, all that's left is George, Cindy and Lee, then...who knows?
     
  17. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They hit really hard on the fact that the prosecution couldn't present any real evidence of cause of death. JB is already doing that. So prosecution can offer a theory on murder/death and convince a jury that it was murder and get a conviction, but there is still the question in the air of how it was done.

    If there is a conviction then defense can admit to an "accident" and KC panicking and not knowing what to do (remember JB's letter to the prosecutor in Dec of last year, just before Caylee was found? Publicly they were saying she was alive, but in the letter JB hinted at an accident.) She lost touch with reality, felt guilt in the death like many parents do after an accident, then made a fantasy that explained the death (for herself) and absolved herself of the guilt that she had found overwhelming. The death of course would have caused the psychotic break, not that the psychotic break caused the death.

    What they will be working for is that one juror who is reluctant to give a young girl a death penalty. They will work to give that juror a scenario that would bring some sympathy for KC, make the death and even the later actions understandable or at least less heinous. He may not be able to say it was an accident, but he can sure hint and play up the fact that the prosecution didn't prove how she was murdered.

    If he dresses her in kiddie clothes for the mitigation I think I will puke.
     
  18. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't he just not discuss the murder in his mitigation? Didn't deny, just didn't admit? And used other factors for his mitigation.
     
  19. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, maybe when i was kidding around when i said they might present and "IF she did it" scenario i was not so far off?
    I just can't see them alluding to an accident if they have just put on a SODDI defense.
    I think they will avoid the issue of guilt or innocence in the penalty phase altogether and just try and paint KC in a human light, one with defects and all, but still a young mom with no history of child abuse. Then perhaps a handful of charcater witnesses confirming how much she loved Caylee. jmho of course.
     
  20. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yeah, he just had the parade of school teachers, golf pros and friends saying what a great guy he was. i expect the same for KC in the event she is convicted.
     
  21. BeanE

    BeanE Inactive

    Messages:
    19,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mitigating factors allowed in Florida:

    The mitigating circumstances that can apply in any given first degree murder case are those set forth in Florida Statute § 921.141(6):

    1. § 921.141(6)(a): The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal history.

    2. § 921.141(6)(b): The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

    3. § 921.141(6)(c): The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act.

    4. § 921.141(6)(d): The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor.

    5. § 921.141(6)(e): The defendant acted under extreme duress or under- the substantial domination of another person.

    6. § 921.141(6)(f): The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law were substantially impaired.

    7. § 921.141(6)(g): The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

    8. § 921.141(6)(h): The existence of any other factors in the defendant’s background that would mitigate against imposition of a death sentence.

    http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/in-depth-look-death-in-florida-2/

    There's also a brief explanation of the process in that same article.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice