Caylee/Casey Anthony Case EXCLUSIVE: New Prosecution Witness Sean Henady
Indiana– Last Wednesday, attorney for Texas Equusearch, Mark Nejame, released a few aerial images that in their opinion prove that the area where 34 month old Caylee Marie Anthony was under water at the time of the last search.
Today, in newly released discovery by the State’s Attorney’s Office, we see the aerial imagery expert responsible for that footage makes the witness list for the prosecution.
Sean Henady, tapped personally by TES founder Tim Miller, spoke exclusively today to blinkoncrime. This will be his only statement regarding the Caylee Anthony case until it’s conclusion.
In August and again in November of 2008, my services were requested by Texas Equusearch for aerial mapping in their efforts to locate missing toddler Caylee Anthony. In November only, my participation expanded to asissting with coordination of the search effort on the ground.
The complete case file, which includes information and Imagery from my office, has been provided to both the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the defense counsel for Casey Marie Anthony as mandated by the discovery process. Every Image from my office was marked “Confidential Not For Public Distribution.”
Sean Henady, President Aerial Image Corp, 3 View Technologies
Henady, together with 12 year missing persons veteran and former director of Missing and Exploited Childrens program Mandy Albritton, recently co-founded 3 View Search Services.
3 View, a non profit organization, is a premier law enforcement support vehicle to provide resources and assets to emergency services teams and to facilitate search and recovery efforts.
Currently, 3VSS resources are only available at the request of the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in a missing persons case. 3VSS is chaired by former Congressman Nick Lampson, founder of The Missing and Exploited Childrens caucus in Washington, DC. Leonard “Len” Wilson is the organizations Chief Executive Officer.
Henady and his team of imaging experts worked extensively on the Stacy Peterson , Brittanee Drexel, and Corrie Anderson cases
In 2005, missing Indianna man Charles Ricky was located exclusively by Henady’s aerial images taken over a quarry he was ultimately recovered in.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
498 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
WSH to clear cache go to edit preferences network and clear cache. Everyone is coming on and we are working out problems. Angela is really busy setting up our ‘ping’ Island so just come on in and type hi I am a Blinker and someone/if on/will help you…As I am typing someone who has been on there for 5 years and friends with Angela is helping someone else with graphics….there’s help at the vrhacks forum too.
Maura, you are a fantastic resource and I appreciate your fabulous sleuthing skills. Thank you SO much.
Can anyone help me with one question that will sadly reveal how cyber-challenged I am? In order to be part of the scantily-clad people running about in Second Life do I need to be a member of Virtuality Hacks or is that just something completely separate?
233 Silver
No pings near the Anthony house on June 14, but there are many gaps in phone activity throughout the day during which she could have made a run to the house. THat’s what I’ve been trying to say about the limits of Casey’s phone records.
For instance, from 8:23am until 12 noon, she didn’t use her phone. The 8:23am ping hit Tony tower #1 and the 12:00pm ping hit Tony tower #2, which is located at 4490 N Goldenrod Rd. When she drives from the Anthony house to Tony’s apartment, she drives north on Chickasaw to northwest on Curry Ford to north on Goldenrod, so she could have been on her way back to Tony’s from the Anthony house at noon, but there are no pings during that gap of three hours and thirty-seven minutes to confirm where she was.
There are other gaps of an hour or slightly more throughout the day, and since it takes her 20 minutes to drive from Tony’s to the Anthony house, she could also have made a quick trip home during one of those gaps.
Chris Stutz was wrong in thinking he saw Casey jogging on Chickasaw on Tuesday, 7/15/08 at approximately 9-9:30. Her text messages show it was on Monday, 7/14/08 at 7:38am that he sent her an email asking if she had been running that morning. At 8:11a Casey sent a text to Chris saying no, it wasn’t her (her cell records show she was at Tony’s for his SMS and her response.
Not only do her pings put her at Tony’s apartment on the morning of June 14, but Cindy would have been driving to work between 7:00-7:45am (a route that includes Chickasaw), and there is no way Casey would be running in a place and at a time when Cindy might spot her.
The fragment of Cindy’s email that I posted is the entire fragment that I found in the discovery.
And it appears that Casey had a lot on her mind on June 14. At 10:53am, Casey left a MySpace message for a friend named Ashley:
“things have been pretty hectic as of late, with trying to be home with my family, have a social life, work & find another job all at the same time. plus, i’m trying to decide what school i want to enroll in for the fall semester. so many choices, no idea what i want to major in this time.”
She was clearly too busy to go jogging.
**Tat should have been July 14 in the comment about the Ashley MySpace message. I’m getting very sloppy.
As we know, Casey called the Anthony landline on July 14 at 3:33pm and left a message (46 seconds). She may have been checking to make sure George was at work in preparation for a lightening run to the house since her next ping isn’t for another 64 minutes, which would have given her about 20 minutes in the Anthony house before she drove back to Tony’s.
#170 Marian
I laughed until I cried. Had to tell you.
242 Kleat
One of the perks of Yahoo!Mail is unlimited storage space. The Yahoo! server would therefore not delete an account holder’s emails, and I can’t imagine a situation (assuming the function is even available) in which an individual account-holder would want his or her emails to vanish from the outbox immediately after sending.
In Lee’s OCSO interview, he said Casey’s Yahoo!Mail account could only have been emptied by someone who knew the password to her account and then deliberately and manually cleared all records.
Suzee and Bee……
I’m glad I gave you a chuckle. It was really funny when it was all over. We had a good laugh last night. Before that- I was both embarrased and frustrated. We really have good friends here on this site!
I keep reading comments regarding the trial jury’s decision to convict or acquit Casey, and I just want to point out that the jury will vote separately on each of the seven counts Casey is facing. It’s not a package deal whereby they will find her guilty of every charge or not guilty of every charge. And for each of the seven separate counts, the jury’s vote for guilt will have to be unanimous in order to get a conviction on that count.
Relative to the first three counts (first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child), the jury will have the option of acquitting Casey on the first degree murder charge and finding her guilty of one or both of the two lesser charges (both are first degree felonies, but they are not capital felonies). The jurors might decide that the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Caylee was intentionally killed by a premeditated design. Or they could be split 50-50 on the first degree murder charge or there could be one hold-out on the first degree murder charge. Casey will only be convicted of first degree murder if all twelve jurors vote for guilt on that charge.
It could be that the jurors will come to a unanimous decision on Casey’s guilt for aggravated manslaughter of a child or for aggravated child abuse or for both of those charges but will not come to a unanimous decision on the charge of premeditated murder. In other words, the jurors could decide that Casey killed Caylee by some action but that Casey did not take that action with the intent to kill Caylee.
I have not been able to work out what the State’s options would be (if any) should the jury be hung on the murder charge (e.g., they could not come to a unanimous decision for a guilty or not guilty verdict) but come to a unanimous agreement of guilt on the charge of manslaughter of a child. Would there be a double-jeopardy violation if the State retried Casey ONLY on the charge of first degree murder (the charge for which the jury was hung) or would the fact that the jury found Casey guilty of killing Casey via the manslaughter charge mean the State could never again try Casey on a charge pertaining to any action taken by Casey that caused Caylee’s death?
If the jury were only presented with the murder charge (no lesser “killing” charges), and were hung, the State would have the option of retrying her on the murder charge or on a lesser manslaughter charge. But if the jury were only presented with a manslaughter charge and found her guilty, the State could not, at a later date, decide they wanted to try her for the greater charge of murder. That would be double jeopardy. So using those examples as a guide, if the jurors have a choice between the two charges and are hung on the murder charge but find Casey guilty of manslaughter, I believe the State would have to accept a manslaughter conviction as the legal end-of-the-road. Is that right, Silver?
On October 14, 2008, the grand jury heard testimony from six witnesses, among them George Anthony, Detective Yuri Melich, K9 Deputy Jason Forgery, and at least two FBI agents (who allegedly gave information about tip results, Casey’s psychological profile, and Pontiac trunk forensics). After deliberating, the grand jury returned seven true bills against Casey Anthony. The grand jury doesn’t need to be convinced of the suspect’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; they only need to be convinced that a preponderance of the evidence presented to them supports the possibility that a particular crime was committed.
The grand jury that heard evidence against Casey was told of her failure to contact LE, of her behavior over the 30-day period following Caylee’s disappearance, of the decomposition evidence in the trunk, of Casey’s chloroform searches in March, and of the higher-than-normal levels of chloroform found in the air sample taken from the Pontiac trunk in July. That’s more than enough evidence to support a finding that Caylee may have been killed from a premeditated design, hence the first degree murder charge.
The grand jury does not hear testimony from the suspect’s advocates to challenge the evidence presented by the State. All the evidence heard by the grand jury will be challenged at trial, and it’s a possibility that some of the evidence heard by the grand jury will not be presented to the trial jury. I am thinking here about the air sample testing and the postmortem banding on the hair sample. As Terence Lenamon wrote last November in his report to the SAO, the techniques used to analyze hair and air samples from the trunk to prove evidence of a body are “novel, experimental, in the early stages of development, inconclusive and highly susceptible to mishandling.”
I’m not saying those arguments will compel Judge Strickland to suppress the hair and air testing, but it is a possibility only because
1) The first mention of postmortem hair banding was made in a journal article in 2001 (according to a forensic website) and very little research has been done regarding this banding and what events, other than death, could cause it. Postmortem banding is furthermore one of the least-observed characteristics of decomposition.
2) Air sampling tests are relatively new and the database of chemical signatures for animal-specific decompositional events is extremely limited. Moreover, the air sample in the Pontiac trunk was complicated by the presence of gasoline fumes, and when those overlapping decomp-gas chemicals were excluded, some of the remaining specific chemicals (sodium and fluoride come to mind) were not at levels consistent with the estimated PMI for a human decompositional event.
3) The testing was conducted (and analysis rendered) by research labs like Oak Ridge, and not by recognized crime labs. This gets into the issue of the lack of widespread testing of those areas of forensics for verification and reproducibility.
I’m not saying Judge Strickland will suppress the hair and air tests. DNA was new once, too. I am saying the defense counsel’s arguments to suppress this evidence won’t be flimsy. The prosecution and defense will fight over evidence issues in the pre-trial hearings, and the jury will only hear what Strickland decides they should hear. He could decide to let the hair and air sampling in and allow the scientists to fight over the significance of the tests in front of the jury. He might decide that the hair and air sampling testing is too theoretical to be allowed to influence a death penalty jury.
At any rate, the grand jury did not merely return a true bill for first degree murder; the jurors also returned true bills for two lesser charges: aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. Whether the decision to include the lesser “killing” charge of manslaughter was made by the grand jurors alone or whether the charge was included at the request of the State is unknown. What is not in question is the fact that the inclusion of the lesser manslaughter charge offers the trial jury an alternative to the first degree murder charge.
Once a grand jury’s true bill is filed with the court, it becomes an indictment, so by late afternoon on October 14, seven indictments had been filed against Casey, and a warrant was immediately issued for her arrest on the following charges.
Count 1. First degree murder (Capital)
Casey Marie Anthony, between June 15 and July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a)(1), from a premeditated design to effect the death of Caylee Marie Anthony, a human being, unlawfully kill Caylee Marie Anthony.
Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a)(1)
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
. . . is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
s. 775.082 (1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole.
Count 2. Aggravated child abuse
Casey Marie Anthony, between June 15 and July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 827.03(2), cause great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement, or permanent disability to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, by intentionally inflicting physical injury upon Caylee Marie Anthony, or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to Caylee Marie Anthony.
Florida Statute 827.03(2) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, and s. 775.084.
Count 3. Aggravated manslaughter of a child
Casey Marie Anthony, between June 15 and July 16, 2008, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statutes 782.07(3) and 827.03(3), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide to Caylee Marie Anthony with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain Caylee Marie Anthony’s physical and mental health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect Caylee Marie Anthony from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person, and in doing so caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
Florida Statute 782.07(3)
3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Florida Statute 827.03(3) “Neglect of a child” means:
827.03(3)(a):
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
For Counts 4-7:
837.055 False information to law enforcement during investigation.–Whoever knowingly and willfully gives false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting a missing person investigation or a felony criminal investigation with the intent to mislead the officer or impede the investigation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Count 4. Providing false information to LE
Casey Marie Anthony, on July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 837.055, knowingly and willfully give false information to Yuri Melich, an OCSO law enforcement officer, who was conducting a missing person investigation, with the intent to mislead Yuri Melich or impede his investigation, to wit: that Casey Marie Anthony was employed at Universal Studios Orlando during the year 2008.
Count 5. Providing false information to LE
Casey Marie Anthony, on July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 837.055, knowingly and willfully give false information to Yuri Melich, an OCSO law enforcement officer, who was conducting a missing person investigation, with the intent to mislead Yuri Melich or impede his investigation, to wit: that Casey Marie Anthony left the child Caylee Marie Anthony at the Sawgrass Apartment, 2863 South Conway Road, Apt. 210, Orlando, Florida, with a person identified as Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez on June9, 2008 or any subsequent date.
Count 6. Providing false information to LE
Casey Marie Anthony, on July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 837.055, knowingly and willfully give false information to Yuri Melich, an OCSO law enforcement officer, who was conducting a missing person investigation, with the intent to mislead Yuri Melich or impede his investigation, to wit: that Casey Marie Anthony informed persons identified as Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis, former Universal Studios Orlando employees, of the disappearance of the child Caylee Marie Anthony between June 9, 2008 and July 16, 2008.
Count 7. Providing false information to LE
Casey Marie Anthony, on July 16, 2008, did, in violation of Florida Statute 837.055, knowingly and willfully give false information to Yuri Melich, an OCSO law enforcement officer, who was conducting a missing person investigation, with the intent to mislead Yuri Melich or impede his investigation, to wit: that Casey Marie Anthony received a phone call from the child Caylee Marie Anthony on July 15, 2008 at approximately 12:00pm.
***
Punishment Statutes:
s. 775.082 – Prison terms. Counts 4-7 are misdemeanors, which, by definition, carry jail/prison terms of less than one year per count. Moreover, those terms may be served consecutively or concurrently, depending on what the judgment is.
I cannot work out from the options listed in s. 775.082 what the prison terms might be for Count 2 and Count 3. Maybe Silver will help us out. Here is the webpage:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0775/SEC082.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0775->Section%20082#0775.082
s. 775.083 – Fines.
s. 775.084 – Deals with punishments for violent career criminals; habitual felony offenders and habitual violent felony offenders; three-time violent felony offenders; definitions; procedure; enhanced penalties or mandatory minimum prison terms. I do not see that 775.084 would apply to Casey since she had no criminal convictions when Caylee disappeared.
***
Now, in light of the lesser manslaughter charge available to the trial jury, it’s interesting that Lyon is working so hard to get the death penalty removed from this case. Part of the reason was clearly stated by Silver: it would be incompetence for Casey’s counsel NOT to do everything in their power to get the death penalty removed. Another reason is IMO strategic relative to public opinion: if Lyon succeeds in getting the death penalty removed ahead of the trial, then the public’s perception would be that the State’s case wasn’t as strong as the death penalty reinstatement would imply.
I welcome Silver’s corrections and explanations. This is what I see from my attempt-to-learn-as-you-go point of view.
Woefully, I agree. I am a 20% Idealist and 80% Advocate so it does get in the way of logic sometimes, I admit. While there are flaws in our Judicial system, I also maintain it is the best jurisprudence in the world.
I also admit if Baez was a competent, ethically- responsible attorney, I might welcome the balance of scales where Lyon comes in. Personal feeling aside, we need to remember that at a 30,000 foot view, this case establishes precedents we have yet to contemplate.
B
PS – The point has also been made in articles I’ve read that DP-qualified jurors tend be conservative law-and-order types who are far more likely to believe the prosecution than they are to believe the defense. They are also more likely to convict than non-DP-qualified jurors, so that would be another strategic reason to get the DP removed from this case.
Here is a link to a six-page article Andrea Lyon wrote in 2006 titled “Defending the Life-or-Death Case.” I strongly recommend it to everyone.
http://www.andrealyon.com/linked/defendingthelife-or-deathcasearticle.pdf
A CSO friend named Logical sent me the link when Lyon joined the defense team. She pointed out the sections in which Lyon describes the need to explore problems in the client’s home environment and family relationships and wondered how Cindy “everything was fine” Anthony is going to react to questions about intra-family violence and abuse.
Another point Lyon’s makes in the article is her strong belief in filing “any motion for which there is a good faith basis.” She gives the following example:
“This is especially true in a capital case because there is no way to anticipate what motion or objection, thus far deemed a “loser” by the courts, may ultimately become a winner. For example, for many years, lawyers representing capital defendants filed motions asking for the right to “reverse Witherspoon” capital juries. These lawyers figured that, if under Witherspoon v. United States, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), the
prosecution had the right to identify and strike for cause all potential jurors who would be unable to impose the death penalty under any circumstances, lawyers for the defense should be able to identify and strike those who would never consider anything else. Courts denied these motions time and again in Illinois, and the denials routinely were affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), and agreed with the “reverse Witherspoon” advocates. If the trial lawyers representing Derrick Morgan had not made their record—had not been willing to hear the word “denied” one more time—this
right would not exist.”
IF I MAY.. READ THE ABOVE LINK. YOU WILL SEE THAT CONTENT IN UPCOMING MOTIONS. IT IS HER “ANGLE”..THANKS MAURA
b
I must offer up a theory, and feel free to agree or not. I think Casey’s resentment in this process began after those first initial weeks. I noticed how, at the first few court appearances and occassional jail visits, Casey was playing the victim role and trying to persuade both of them that she was “innocent”, constantly looking over at them, even “innocently waving at them as she was led out of the courtroom, etc. I believe she expected Cindy and George were able and going to get her off the hook, like they had been doing all her life. As time went on and she realized noone was going to help her escape the mess she created, that’s when she been being cold and aggressively detached to them, culminating in the most recent courtroom antics by not really acknowledging them and giving George the middle finger. What do you guys think?
Reading the article now, Blink. As we have been recently discussing what the defense theory might be, and this case is wrought with Casey’s plans for what was going on, in the 31 days, ideas of a nanny that morphs into kidnapper(s), etc etc, and the scenario morphs time and time again with Cindy’s ideas, George’s whatever ideas (we know little). So our ideas of what the defense might offer seems to be based on the explanations of Casey and Cindy and the manipulations towards that end, by Cindy mastermind.
Interesting view presented by Ms. Lyon on pg. 3 of 6 (link in Maura’s post 260):
“But do not expect your client to tell you what theory of the case and/or mitigation ought to be. It is unlikely that he will have great insight (or any insight) into his own behavior.”
What does this say about Casey’s planning, and what, especially does this say about Cindy, who doesn’t listen to anyone but Cindy who buys Casey’s behaviour and stories completely.
How will Ms. Lyon be able to deal with what Cindy wants? And hasn’t Cindy, following and manipulating Casey’s story material and evidence, been dictating the defense storyline to the point where Cindy’s own actions tie the defense into her own theories? Unless of course, blame will be assigned to Cindy, if only to mitigate Casey’s behaviour as a result of her upbringing and family life.
So what was the deal in the recent motions, with ToddyMacs once again, saying ‘she is INNOCENT and we have EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT’.
How does this position reconcile with what Ms. Lyon writes on Pg 5 of her paper:
“I also wrote that “[i]t is not good t put on a ‘he didn’t do it’ defense and a ‘he is sorry he did it’ mitigation. This just does not work.”
Ms. Lyon goes on to say “The jury will give the death penalty to the client and, in essense, the attorney.”
and… “the point is not that you should never put on a defense based on the theory that the police got the wrong guy, but think these things through before you start trial: even if you have an innocent client, the odds are you will be facing a penalty phase.”
Why the early declaration, therefore, of the “INNOCENT” declaration?
Very Good catch Kleat- This disjoint was obvious to me inasmuch as the defense appears indignant at the prospect of her guilt, Lyon is saying there is no mitigation strategy that will work, in essence- assume their is going to come a time where the “inevitable” happens.
She was invited too late to the party on this one no matter how you slice it, the horse was out of the barn.
B
#261 Todd***I think casey’s finger went up the moment she murdered caylee. The lame “gesture” in court shows her continuing contempt for her family, part of the defense strategy. Also, I wonder if she watched her dad’s M&M deposition.
Seeing that Casey is charged with the crime of murder, how is it that she can be making money off of book and movie deals and also selling photos of Caylee. this is wrong and George and Cindy shouldn’t be allowed to do this either. they are just as guilty as Casey is because of all of the lying and covering up that they have been doing.this family makes me so sick. IMO,they didn’t love this child as much as they want people to beleive they did. they are the lowest of the low because they are making a living off of the death of Caylee.MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF YOUR MISERABLE SOULS,CINDY,GEORGE AND CASEY.
Lily & Shelly
I will try the instructions, but I am working on an older computer, so that may be the problem. Thanks for all the help.
I understand that a death penalty qualified jury is tilted toward the favor of the prosecution, at least in terms of the statistics noted on conviction. However, that would be a wholesale argument for not having the death penalty at all, if you argue elimination of jurors who might acquit. I do understand that this may be Lyon’s “mission”, in the end. However, if a state has existing laws that permit the death penalty, then you are up against those particular laws. Aren’t you?
Again, I thought (please correct me) that the laws were such in FL, that if there is a homicide of a child under 12, along with the charge of aggravated child neglect, you were automatically entitled, as a prosecutor, to make the decision of trying a capital case. Those two charges, in and of themselves, are considered heinous enough, that the state wouldn’t need to argue past the law, or would they?
Clearly, with out any additional evidence, we can accept the aggravated neglect charge. Not informing anyone that there was an “abduction” seems to fit perfectly under this. :
“A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.”
Secondly, recovering Caylee’s remains, in the woods, with duct tape across her face, indicates, strongly, foul play, as opposed to death by natural causes, or accident. (Although I personally still believe that the duct tape could have been “staging” after the fact, but I am moving away from this, as I read more of Maura’s and the rest of your posts collectively).
Is the state obligated to reveal more, in terms of other aggravating factors (theories, etc) if they have already followed existing law? The law may not be fair, but it is the law. Does Lyons have to present any evidence about the case, in order to demonstrate that an “innocent person” (Casey) will be subject to an unfair advantage for the state?
If she argues fairness vs truth, couldn’t her own actions, in not revealing an innocent party sent to jail, under her watch, come back to haunt her? In that instance, she was following the letter of the law, and not fairness or truth in regard to the innocent man incarcerated.
She has one job, and one job only. She has to knock the DP off the table as unconstitutional based on the opinion that the state is using it as a tactic to violate her clients rights. It has nothing to do whatsoever with her guilt or innocense at this point really. In legaleez, it is more like going after an opinion in which it is used as a precedent to rewrite the constitutionality of the DP within the Supreme Court of Florida.
Yes, regardless of your opinion personally on the death penalty, it should at least pizz you off that an attorney for another state on “loan” can be permitted to effectively bring another state’s moritoreum to on e where the people have already spoken, imo.
Correction:
if she argues “fairness”….couldn’t
It didn’t make sense to me, after reading it.
Westside and Lily,
Thank you for responding to my question re: where the dogs hit. I was actually looking for this info. for Angela on SL. She has gone by the actual picture and placed the cones in the corner of the yard. We were just not sure if there were other places “hit on” or not. If there were other places, Angela wanted to know so that she could also mark those places for accuracy.
Blink, can you eliminate my first correction, it should have read
“fairness vs law”….
Thanks
Oh, I just read your response. My point was that she was arguing “fairness”, in part. But the law is not always balanced or fair. And she herself, ran into this by permitting an innocent man to be jailed, while defending her client. Again, I reiterate, the law is the law. She followed the letter of the law in that circumstance, and not what was fair, or even ‘just’ for the innocent man jailed. Now she appears to be arguing against what is an existing law (my opinion doesn’t matter), in favor of fairness.
The state has to prove 1st degree murder with an aggravating factor. I thought that this was covered by a) the ME’s opinion of homicide based on the remains B) the ME & State’s further opinion based on actions, before and after the death , that premeditation, at least within a split second, was indicated. The aggravating factor would then be the neglect charge.
If she is going to argue that the state hasn’t presented enough evidence of premeditation in order to qualify for a capital case, then do they (the state) have to detail all of what they compiled, that led them to this conclusion, while arguing against Lyon’s motion to dismiss the death penalty?
It seems to me, it would be like having a trial before the trial..???
Obviously, I’m a bit flummoxed by this.
Very well phrased, I would invite silver to expand, but in short, your right. Part of the strategy is getting the state to justify the DP change was done in good faith, er go, what evidence do they have?
B
Maura #259
That shouldn’t happen if the Jury Verdict Questionnaire is properly crafted.
The jury doesn’t just get the statutory definition. They get a series are carefully crafted questions that will lead them to what is hopefully a logical result.
If they find her guilty on the lesser included offense of Aggravated Manslaughter, it should mean that they either did not believe that she carried out a premeditated killing of Caylee.
What your question truly is about, is Double Jeopardy.
The Double Jeopardy Clause consists of three separate guarantees: (1) “[i]t protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. [(2)] It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. [(3)] And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense” (North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 US 711, 717 1969] [footnotes omitted] overruled in part on other grounds Alabama v. Smith, 490 US 794 [1989]).
The Constitution of the State of Florida provides:
SECTION 9. Due process.–No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
If the verdict is inconsistent as per your scenario, i.e. if the jury is “hung” on the Murder charge, but finds her guilty of, say, Aggravated Manslaughter (the lesser included offense),did the murder charge reach a final conclusion?
There are a couple of key questions here:
1. Is the unlawful killing of Caylee the “same offense”, whether it was intentional (Murder) or not (Aggravated Manslaughter).
The question really is this: is a “hung” jury equivalent to an acquittal.
If it is, then theoretically, no. The State may not retry her.
If it is not, then theoretically, yes. The State may retry her.
I did not find a Florida case on point, and honestly did not spend much time searching, but there may also be a Florida statute that will spell it out (although, statutes are interpreted by courts in case law, so… back to searching for a case, for anyone out there who has the time).
I am aware of other cases where a particular state’s Supreme Court has read that particular state’s statute as flatly barring a retrial on a greater offense whenever there is already a conviction on a lesser-included one. (California, for certain)
I simply don’t know whether Florida has a statute governing the issue.
******
As to Lyon fighting so hard to get the DP off the table, what could be more important to anyone representing someone accused of a capital offense for which the State can impose the ultimate sentence of Death than to fight for her client’s life. (I didn’t mean to imply that her motivation had anything to do with a post-conviction charge of ineffective assistance of counsel).
She is clearly committed to fighting what she sees as an impermissible use of power by the State, but I am certain she is also, particularly, fighting for Casey’s life (no matter what she personally believes Casey may have done).
BTW-
The State was required to charge Casey with the lesser included offense of Aggravated Manslaughter.
“[I]f the prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged, and if no lesser offense instruction is offered, the jury must, as a theoretical matter, return a verdict of acquittal. But a defendant is entitled to a lesser offense instruction-in this context or any other-precisely because he should not be exposed to the substantial risk that the jury’s practice will diverge from theory. Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction.” 412 U.S., at 212-213, 93 S.Ct. at 1997-1998. The Court explained the value of such a safeguard in Beck v. Alabama, where it held that the death sentence may not constitutionally be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense if the jury has not been permitted to consider an alternative verdict of guilt of a lesser included offense. In reaffirming the Court’s commitment to the lesser-offense doctrine, the Court observed that “the nearly universal acceptance of the rule in both state and federal courts establishes the value to the defendant of this procedural safeguard.” 447 U.S., at 637.
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court more than once has expressed the understanding that a lesser-included-offense option minimizes the risk of undermining the reasonable-doubt standard. Florida, whose laws here apply, apparently has reached the same understanding, and requires that any person indicted for a “degree crime” such as first-degree murder is entitled to have the jury instructed on all degrees of the offense (absent the running of the statute of limitations on any lesser included offense- but that does not apply here).
*****
The defense will certainly be filing pre-trial motions to preclude the admission of the forensic testing you mentioned. The court’s decision on these motions will be pivotal to any plea negotiations that may follow.
*****
My last post was written in haste, and clearly I meant to say more, but I think you get the gist.
If the jury finds her guilty of the necessarily lesser included offense of Aggravated Manslaughter (Florida categorizes lesser included offenses are either necessary or permissive), than it should mean that they did not find–or agree– that the killing was premeditated.
Further down, I said there were 2 questions, but only enumerated the first.
The second was there, just no enumeration.
Just want to add that this is entirely theoretical at this point, and that IF that bizarre result occurs, then there are arguments to be made on either side, although I still believe that the State would not be entitled to retry her on the Murder charge (and why would they if they have a conviction on Aggravated Manslaughter).
**your question gave me a headache!
Just by way of example, here is a Jury Verdict Questionnaire where the jurors have 38 counts to consider, including 18 counts of murder.
The murder counts in this example include the possibility of lesser charges such as second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Lesser charges are also possible on the robbery and rape counts.
Even if the jury doesn’t find the defendant in this case guilty of premeditated first degree murder, felony murder still carries the death penalty.
The jury in this case is also the sentencing jury and it has the final say.
If jurors are hung on the death penalty sentence, they’ll discuss lesser sentences such as life without parole.
Different State, but just to give an idea:
http://wate.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/news/VerdictformsforLetalvisCobbins.pdf
263 Guilt phase versus penalty phase
What I understood in Lyon’s paper is that if the defense claims in the guilt phase of the trial that the defendant is innocent, then the defense cannot make a 180 degree reversal after a guilty verdict and claim the defendant is sorry for committing the crime that the lawyers had just been claiming he or she never committed. She is saying, essentially, if the jury concludes the defense claims of innocence are untrue, then the defense knows its credibility with the jury is shot, and suddenly claiming that the “innocent” client is sorry for having committed the crime will only reinforce the jury’s believe that defense does not tell the truth. IIRC, she said the only option for the defense during the penalty phase (following the jury’s rejection of the defense’s claims of innocence) will be to stress to the jury that the client’s life is not without value.
At the end of last year when Linda Kenney Baden first joined the defense, she was on a talk show and started to talk about “degrees of guilt” in reference to this case, but very shortly thereafter, she was claiming Casey was completely innocent of wrongdoing.
My take is this – Casey is claiming 100% innocence in the matter of Caylee’s death, which means the defense lawyers are extremely limited in the type of defense they can present for Casey. The lawyers cannot put forth a “guilty but not as bad as you think because of x, y, and z” unless the defendant agrees to that defense strategy. Where Casey wants to be regarded as a victim herself who had nothing to do with Caylee’s death, that is the hand the lawyers were dealt and must play.
Baez stupidly claimed to the public that Casey is innocent. He should have stuck with “Casey is not guilty of harming Caylee.” But Baez did not take the more reasonable route, and since he has been making public claims that Casey is innocent, the other members of the defense team have to say the same to appear cohesive. That, IMO, is why Linda Kenney Baden’s “degrees of guilt” talk was quickly shut down.
Here is a news article from just last week on the Letalvis Cobbins case relevant to the Jury Verdict Form:
http://www.wbir.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=96906
I am also thinking of another case where there were post-conviction issues related to the jury’s verdict in a similar vein to your scenario.
It involved the woman whose dogs mauled her neighbor to death in the apartment hallway. I can’t recall the name right now, but I know there were Double Jeopardy issues.
wsh, what older one are you using? My guess, if it’s a Mac, is the limiting graphics card.
WOW to Maura and Silver, thank you both for explaining all of this. To both of you, you cannot imagine how many people, from all walks of life, grab a cuppa java and hope you guys have posted something when they rev up the computer! I am hearing it daily as I try to help Angela get people oriented to Second Life. I am sure both of you (and Blink) have burning ears from all the talking about you going on~!
Silver, in my little serene community suddenly the media spotlight has been on. Kristi Cormwell, who went for a walk with her blue tooth on (talking to her boyfriend)….was abducted. She was a former parole officer who was going back to school to add to her degree..and she taught classes in self defense. So, I wanted my real initials off. I have never typed online and I became scared. So I add to your warning to women to be cautious. The unspeakable, unthinkable can happen to anyone, anytime…so very sad.
Mariann you already know you have had us wetting our pants laughing. The priceless laughter shared by quiet a few was when you did come online and we teleported you to the famous “cornfield” and you landed in bra and panties almost in the middle of the campfire!
BEES KNEES, there are quiet a few trying to figure out how to make you an outfit. We want to make you that flannel gown and furry slippers, Angela wants to put your hair in curlers…someone else said let’s make her look like “Maxine”…….
A good stock tip her all……buy stock in headphones; the cheapies from Cindy’s favorite shopping place Target…I hear there is a run on them even in Canada….
I will try to get time to post some of the excellent thoughts/questions about the case that have come up from us communicating in Second Life,soon. In the meantime I am so busy trying to keep up the reading here and helping people get set up on Second Life….whew, I have such a busy social life
….my southern drawl is really giving one poster in Canada nightmares!
Angela is working on the Ping island now!
Blink, you are one helluva wonderful person, in case no one has told you lately……:)
If the ‘she’s innocent’ claim does not work at trial, they’re (Casey is) screwed!!!!
On the other hand, if they get a hung jury or if this ‘I’m innocent’ idea can be blamed on inept councel who didn’t wait before making such claims or nailing themselves down, to such claims, BEFORE waiting to see if the DP would be back on the table (ie after body found), AND if they succeed in having the fraud charges delayed until after trial, they can surely get Casey home as she awaits appeal.
Can a claim of inadequate counsel be claimed because Baez made those innocent statements, had his team members echo the same in the media cameras? (Linda K-B said it, ToddyMacs said it when he ‘rode into town’ last spring)
Or is there time to repair this, from an appeal standpoint now that Ms. Lyon is on board? (or is an appeal now inevitable if the incompetent (including Toddy Mac for lack of DP or even murder case, experience making these ‘INNOCENT’ blurbs) lawyers went beyond the point of no return on this (and repeated, repeated, even now with dp on board)?
Maura, yes, seems Baez was stupid in his choice of words for a client that may be sticking to the 100% innocent position. Even if Casey is sticking to her story, 100% innocent, it was still at that point ‘months’ before trial with a body found which could bring a DP decision back. So Baez should have quit playing the media, having his puppet Linda K-B, QUIT spouting same, neither is a DP qualified attorney PERIOD. Instead of playing ‘themselves’ to the media and using this case to do same, they should have held off of their defense position by choosing words, as you say, more carefully.
So what, doesn’t matter what the client says at this point– because the trial was never just around the corner, they had time, the client was not going to the media or going out in public and had no way of saying to the public ‘I’m innocent and that’s what I’ll do at trial’. The lawyers should have had the skills to choose alternate words. Because this limits the client’s own option, to say a year from now, ‘not guilty’ that does not tie her to ‘innocent’.
in the public, Ms. Lyon’s prestigious reputation may take some scraping before this is over– because she’s supposed to be the one to call the shots, and just because she came in too late, doesn’t mean she won’t take a beating over this, if they don’t win absolutely, on the ‘INNOCENT’ claim.
It’s a year from trial, what’s the rush to give the defense theory now??? They could have shut up in the hearing, withdrawn the motion to ‘announce to the cameras’ why client is proven innocent already.
Silver said, “She is clearly committed to fighting what she sees as an impermissible use of power by the State”…
In essence if Lyons is saying that they are unfairly applying a death penalty in order to get a conviction, (in bad faith, as Blink stated), then does this force the prosecution to present their case, with this motion, to prove that the decision was based on merit (evidence) and applicable laws? I am not arguing that this isn’t a step that Lyons should take, I am asking how far the prosecution has to explain/prove the decision. I know I am speaking in simplistic terms, I’m not a lawyer, I was trying to get a handle on what transpires in arguments on both sides for such a motion. If you’ve already answered this, apologies.
The majority of recent capital cases in PA which were reversed on appeal/new trial granted were based on counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence.
Commonwealth v. Johnson (Raymond), No. 3849/99 (Berks C.P., Crim. Div. Mar. 9, 2007) (death sentence reversed for counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence).
Commonwealth v. Thomas (LeRoy) a/k/a John Wayve, Dec. Term, 1994, No. 700 (Phila. C.P. Jan. 11, 2007) (stipulated penalty-phase relief for counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence)
Marshall v. Beard, No. 03-CV-795 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2007) (stipulation to grant of penalty phase relief on petitioner’s claim of penalty-phase ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence)
Crews v. Horn, 3:98-CV-1464 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2006) (stipulated grant of penalty-phase relief on claim that penalty-phase counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence) (re-sentenced to two life sentences)
Lewis v. Horn, No. 00-CV-802, 2006 WL 2338409, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2006) (death penalty reversed for penalty-phase counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence concerning petitioner’s mental illness, psychosis, and personality disorder; possible borderline retardation; brain damage; emotional impairments, and history of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse as a child. Counsel’s numerous failures to present mitigating evidence included, inter alia, evidence that petitioner’s mother drank turpentine while pregnant; petitioner’s behavioral changes resulting from massive head injury sustained when father slammed petitioner’s head against a bathtub when petitioner was a young child; and episodes in which petitioner tore up his room with a knife in what he believed was a fight with Satan)
Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, No.2194-89, 2006 Pa. D&C Dec LEXIS 105 (Berks C.P., Crim. Div. June 23, 2006 (death sentence reversed for trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence, including “his background and his very significant organic brain impairment”)
Commonwealth v. Gorby, Noo. 385 Cap. App. kt., 909 A.2d 775 (Pa. June, 20, 2006) (death sentence reversed for trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to investigate, develop and present life history and mental-health mitigating evidence, including evidence of childhood abuse and neglect; and a cognitive disorder diminishing, inter alia, defendant’s reasoning, judgment, and impulse control; counsel’s performance deficient for failing to interview readily available life-history witnesses, obtain medical and social history records, and explore mental health issues that were apparent from the circumstance of the offense and the defendant’s background; counsel also ineffective for failing to adequately develop a mitigation claim relating to defendant’s intoxication; and for failing to request an instruction explaining the relevance under 42 Pa. C.S. Section 9711(e)(8) of the limited evidence that counsel did present; direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to present any claim of trail counsel’s penalty-phase ineffectiveness)
ETC, ETC, ETC
Can’t comment on Florida.
Imo, the DP was put back on the table to increase the possibility that the defendant will take a plea. But don’t hold your breath for nolo contedere or alford. I highly doubt they will be attending this particular legal party. This, however, is where Lyon might argue the constitutionality of such a move as it could be seen as a strong-arm tactic to intimidate the defendant into a plea.
Within this “presumed” context, I would be more concerned wrt why the prosecution has chosen this direction. Bc it raises doubt wrt just how strong the their case is. Or rather, perhaps their case is not as strong as we, the public, are led to believe. Then again, I have admittedly wondered about the direction this case has taken due to the public spectacle this tragedy has become. Esp considering the degree with which OCSO seems to be trying this case in the media.
That aside, since the defense is taking the “Caylee’s remains were dumped on Suburban after Casey was already in jail,” I doubt they will challenge the nuclear dna test. I would however expect them to challenge the air test wrt scientific validity and reliability under Florida’s Frye ruling. Their ultimate goal being to cast doubt on anything that “explicitly” ties Casey to Caylee’s death and later disposal. Finding prints on the duct tape may (or not) be probative in that the defense can easily point out that duct tape is a common household item. If prints were found on the sticky side? Not so much. Same goes for finding prints on the bags and/or the contents thereof.
All in all, and in the end, regardless of what the defense does (or does not) do, the overall burden of proof rests upon the state. And at this point, I’m not seeing enough evidence that withstands the reasonable shadow of doubt test for murder in the first.
Could the defense be actually saying (without saying) that their client is ‘innocent’ of the greatest charge, but may be ‘not guilty’ by reason of some other theory, or even ‘guilty’ of one or more of the other lesser charges that do not in themselves, consitute a DP case?
Is that what could be going on with the ‘Innocent and we have evidence to prove it’ position ‘playing to the public’ via Judge Strickland’s courtroom?
From Casey’s point of view, she tends to blame others for her situation, as we have heard from the jail phonecall where she tells her mother ‘it’s not MY fault’ (that I’m in jail). (mother says ‘what do you mean it’s not your fault? ‘
So her position will be, if she has anything to do with providing the defense theories (vs what Ms. Lyon says one should allow to happen), that someone else is at fault, ‘not me’.
Is the state, and maybe Ms. Lyon too, working to get around that problem? To mitigate the ‘dp sentence’ by allowing this to play out until Casey, like Ryan Jenkins, is in a tight spot and can do nothing else but opt for a ‘my fault, but I didn’t mean it, couldn’t help it, was an accident and I made a mistake not calling’ defense, or to ‘give in’, with whatever options are at hand.
Thank you for your comments and explanations, Silver.
I can’t get over that Jury Verdict Questionnaire. I’ve never been called for jury duty, so I had no idea jurors would be faced with so many choices for a single case.
# 278-
Kleat, I have always wondered , if at a desperate point, they would cop to an accidental death, therefore, she would be “innocent ” of premeditated murder, and stating that wouldn’t be contrary to the defense statement. Why else would they have brought Mac on? Although if they go accidental, then they would have to finger someone “who placed the body there while Casey was in jail”.
And yep, # 279
Instead of courting the media every five minutes, his statements should have been limited my “My client is not guilty and we will prove that in a court of law, I have no further comments”. Cindy and George would have helped her too, if they kept a clamp on it, instead of running their mouths everywhere with conflicting statements that made Casey look more guilty.
#282-Silver, they can still press forward with accidental death and mitigating factors can include mental health issues such as a compulsive lying disorder that kept her from reporting her actions of a cover-up, or someone else who covered it up. Casey also mentioned to a few people that she thought she needed help, and was having some sort of a breakdown. They can later acknowledge that she was unfortunately previously undiagnosed with some sort of a disorder, through an expert witness.
Re: post # 277
A big shout out to Blinker Pedalo, Boots, et al for their kind and patient assist today getting set up in the cornfield on Virtual Juror, Second Life. I am almost wired and ready for more case discussion.
The ability to have real time give and take on case issues is a valuable tool for analysis. Everyone seems to bring little areas of expertise to this Virtual Table. It totally exceeded my expectations.
Thanks to Angela and of course Blink for setting this up.
Now OFF to snag that microphone from Target. Thisbe Capelo
Maura, never called for jury duty?? Neither have I, but isn’t it a strange co-incidence that Casey had been called for jury duty, what did she say, every year? (that would be of her adult/voting age life, which would be from March 19, 2004??? Of course, she was called but never actually had to take part, so her story goes. That’s 4 years 4 calls to jury duty for Ms. Casey (or was it once every couple years). Still seems a lot for a young person, just starting adult life.
Maybe she got a call and embellished the number of times in her story, as she tends to do, but was she ‘thinking’ about juries for some other reason, in the months leading up to last summer??? Casey asked a lot of seemingly knowledgeable questions to LE and the FBI, about secrecy of the grand jury and why her name was ‘thrown out’ to media if it was supposed to be secret, etc, she asked about video monitoring of her ‘holding/interview’ room as she awaited arrival of her attny, she knew about routes to escape police the day she was being brought ‘in’ by her mother, driving in a manner, knew enough to give a story about ‘media’ following them, so that excused Cindy’s driving in a highly illegal and apparently ‘dangerous’ manner that the law enforcement officers and FBI said resembled a ‘vehicle take-down’ with the same adrenalin pumping ‘danger’.
Casey seemed to know a lot about legal things, for a young woman who was uneducated, unsophisticated, and who had never had, apparently, personal experience with the law before. Was she preparing for her role as ‘victim mother’ by thinking about juries, about her storyline, about how things work and what she’d have to go through, and risk to be free of her daughter?
Angela, maybe the prosecution felt that putting the dp back on the table would help with Casey realizing her situation and that she could not continue to manipulate the world with her stories, but also, the prosecution in doing this, might have well underestimated the seemingly endless resources that this young mother has at her disposal to continue to pay not just for her own lawyers, but the resources she needs in the context of a DP defense– which is substantially more demanding, as we read in Ms. Lyon’s paper, to include a large and diverse team, minimally two qualified attorneys for capital cases, forensic specialists (in this case, botanists, biologists, forensic anthropologists etc), mitigation specialist, psychiatric specialist, and then there’s the team of legal assistants, not all can be Ms. Lyon’s students, who presumably could do some research, but not advise, not be confided in as part of the team.
Ms. Casey has endless monetary resources, only tied to her ability to squeeze from her baby’s body, the blood money. But she may also have been able to put aside money from criminal activities, including funneling money from her mother’s credit card purchases into her own little cash cache hidden away somewhere. (not criminal, because he mother will never make that accusation– it’s ‘not relevant’)
#289 “Casey seemed to know a lot about legal things”….
Does she have a juvenile record that is sealed? Maybe she has had a taste of being on the wrong side of law enforcement.
BTW…
YES… AS OTHERS SAID, THANK YOU BLINK FOR CREATING THIS INTERESTING PLACE WHERE EVERYONE CAN BOUNCE IDEAS BACK & FORTH.
That needed to be in a gigantic font, but alas, I am limited.
ArgentinaRose, from what I’ve gathered Casey can make money up until the time of her conviction. Not after. I’m not sure if there are restrictions on George & Cindy (other than moral and ethical ones!!!)
Shelly, I’ll see you there (I hope) tomorrow. My sister’s going to help me “find” you all! I am sooo looking forward to it. Love the costume ideas!
To Blink’s suggestion that something was found by Cindy that caused her concern, on July 3rd. Maura’s timeline info says:
“Casey never identified “her” by name, but Cindy told OCSO on August 1 that Casey told Cindy on July 3 that Casey sent Juliet to the house that afternoon to pick up some items for Casey, who was in Jacksonville.”
Cindy will claim that this conversation would have taken place by telephone, to fit the discovery records, no doubt, if that fits. Otherwise, she would have to do some explaining about computer and cell phone deletions of the text and email messages from Casey for that date.
This also might have led Cindy to try to get a hold of the Jeff that she knew in Jacksonville on or after that date.
Had Casey perhaps, in the months before mid-June, told her mother about big work events for July 4th she might be involved in planning perhaps? (no basis for this, but it might have caused concern for Cindy, if Casey was in Jacksonville when she had some Universal work committments for that July 4th, which is reasonable, since Cindy may have wanted the whole family to go with Caylee to fireworks and that would likely cause Casey to have alternate work committments as an excuse). But she did not bring Caylee home to go with Cindy and George, either way.
Why haven’t you posted the information on the boot found that is probably Tracy Ocasio’s?
AGAIN, YOUR IN THE WRONG THREAD.. THERE’S SEVERAL LINKS.
B
# 290
As much as you have some fine points as to the reasons for the prosecution’s direction, (and a sense of balance, karma-wise),they can not arbitrarily decide to impose a consideration of a penalty, such as death, merely as a means to elicit a guilty plea , or to get a ‘sure-up’ on their chances for a conviction; nor attempt to balance the scales of justice because one is lucky enough to have a “wall of defense” ( more so than the average ‘Joe Shmoe’ , who gets an overworked public defender). This was asserted by Silver, others, in a more legally sophisticated verse, prior. They may have good intentions, but they can not , (which Lyon will argue), manufacture a death penalty option, without proper circumstances such as STRONG evidence of premeditation.
I suppose I may finally be getting the points, that these ladies ( Maura , Silver, Angela) made earlier: yes ? (BTW,thanks for all of your assistance in SL. Angela, you are amazing and fun).
So, the prosecution may be forced to present their case, and prove, with merit, (through evidence) that there was a legally justifiable reason to option the death penalty.
Us’dumb folk’ take some time to get it….duh
Someone , please argue a prosecution standpoint, for balance.
The state must be possessing some key evidence that will only be brought up in the trial, or has already been released to the defense, and Baez is just sitting on it for awhile. They obviously have some solid evidence against Casey, otherwise I don’t think that the grand jury would have brought the first degree murder charge in a matter of only 40 minutes. They have something. My opinion, ofcourse
Maura-
Check this out.
A recent Florida case with a mother charged with several similar counts, to wit: murder, aggravated manslaughter of a child, aggravated child abuse and neglect of a child.
So much for my carefully crafted jury verdict form!
Here, the jury found the mom/defendant guilty of ALL counts (huh??)
AND–the judge actually sentenced her on ALL counts.
The problem with that?
VIOLATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
Why?
Because per the Florida statutory definitions of Murder and Aggravated Manslaughter, the charge of Aggravated Manslaughter is (what Florida refers to as) a “necessarily lesser included offense” (vs. a permissive lesser included offense).
How can a jury find someone guilty of the greater crime AND the lesser included offense?
(because the jury verdict form was not clear)
How can a judge sentence a defendant on BOTH of those crimes at the same time??
He can, but he will be reversed on appeal.
Lest anyone be concerned, the defendant-mom in the case I am referring to is still sentenced to life on the murder charge. The conviction/sentence on the lesser included offense of Aggravated Manslaughter, however, was vacated (not that it assists the convicted mom in any way).
Check it out:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
CANDY LOVELL,
Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D03-3786
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
___________________________________/
Opinion filed September 24, 2004
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Warren Burk, Judge.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and
Lyle Hitchens, Assistant Public Defender,
Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach,
for Appellee.
MONACO, J.
Candy Lovell appeals the judgment and sentence imposed on her after being found guilty of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and neglect of a child with great bodily harm. Because the case law leads us to the conclusion that the convictions and sentences for both first-degree murder and aggravated manslaughter of the same child violate the state and federal constitutional principle proscribing double jeopardy, we reverse the conviction of aggravated manslaughter, but otherwise affirm.
Ms. Lovell and her co-defendant, Jamie Hawkins, were tried for various offenses arising out of the death of Ms. Lovell’s young daughter, Summer. The evidence presented by the State indicated that Summer’s death was caused by multiple blunt force injuries. As a result of the application of this force to the child’s abdomen, her bladder ruptured, and urine flowed into her abdominal cavity. Although immediate treatment would have saved Summer’s life, Ms. Lovell and Mr. Hawkins delayed having her seen by medical personnel for several days.
As a result of her convictions, Ms. Lovell was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree felony murder, 25.9 years in prison for aggravated manslaughter, fifteen years in prison for neglect of a child with great bodily harm, all of which were to run concurrently, and fifteen years probation for aggravated child abuse, to run consecutive to the prison terms. As noted, Ms. Lovell argues that her convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and aggravated manslaughter violate double jeopardy.
In order to determine whether two convictions constitute a violation of the principles of double jeopardy, we are required to go beyond a simple application of the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2001). Dual convictions satisfying Blockburger may still be violative of the constitution if the offenses are considered to be “degree variants of the same core offense.” See Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2001); Mitchell v. State, 830 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2003).
We begin our analysis with the exceptions to the Blockburger test found in section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). That statute provides that:
The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:
1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof.
2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.
3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.
In order to determine whether the second exception – the exception for degree variants – applies, one must undertake a two-step inquiry. First we must determine whether the crimes constitute separate offenses under Blockburger and section 775.021(4)(a). If so, we must determine whether the crimes are degree variants or aggravated forms of the same core offense. Gordon, 780 So. 2d at 21; Mitchell, 830 So. 2d at 946.
In the present case the crimes of first-degree felony murder and aggravated manslaughter are separate offenses under Blockburger because each crime contains an element that the other does not. A conviction for felony murder in the present case required the State to prove that the death of the child occurred during the commission of the felony of aggravated child abuse. Aggravated manslaughter, however, only required proof that the child died as a result of Ms. Lovell’s culpable negligence in failing to get medical attention for the child. In addition, it is clear that the offenses are not degrees of the same offense, nor is one offense a lesser offense subsumed by the greater.
We must now consider whether the two offenses are degree variants or aggravated forms of core offenses. Both crimes are proscribed by Chapter 782 of the Florida Statutes, entitled Homicide. Both are addressed to, and punish the same evil, the perpetration of an act leading to death. Both involve one of the core crimes, homicide. Using this analysis, we held in Mitchell that dual convictions for attempted second-degree murder and attempted felony murder were barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. Finally, we consider the following language of the Florida Supreme Court in Gordon:
“We have held repeatedly that section 775.021 did not abrogate our previous pronouncements concerning punishments for singular homicides. (Citations omitted). Indeed, this principle is based on notions of fundamental fairness which recognize the inequity that inheres in multiple punishments for a singular killing.
Gordon at 25. See also State v. Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838, 839 (Fla. 1993) (multiple convictions for singular homicides are impermissible); Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985) (only one homicide conviction and sentence may be imposed for a single death).
Accordingly, we conclude that Ms. Lovell should not have been convicted and sentenced for both first-degree felony murder and aggravated manslaughter of a child for the death of her daughter. We, therefore, vacate only the conviction and sentence for aggravated manslaughter of a child. While we have considered the other arguments raised by Ms. Lovell in this appeal, we conclude that they are without merit, and thus affirm the judgment and sentences in all respects other than for aggravated manslaughter.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
I apolly in advance for starting a response to one of your finely posts with “Dang”-
But “Dang”-
I sat in a meeting Fri where this very case was discussed, your automatic silver, impressive.
B
oh oh, Blink goes CAPS!!
LOL
B
#295 WSH – I think I just got this point today too after reading (and having to re-read) all of the comments and links about the prosecution strategy and seeing it clinically and legally speaking – and not emotionally. I’m not a death penalty proponent but there are days when I hope the thought of it hanging over her head (Casey) gives her more than a little anxiety.
I now understand that the DP has to be rare, pursued with integrity and must be able to stand all on its own and why it can’t and shouldn’t be used as a bargaining tool by the prosecution. If they’re going to put it on the table – they had better be fully confident that the evidence supports it.
Without Baez’s antics I think I would be able to look at the defense strategy with a little bit more objectivity but even an amateur like me can see that he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and wears his rookie status on his sleeve. We talk so much about the defense team and their strategies – and we’ve all heard so much from the prosecution (too much) in the media. It would be nice if some of the big brains here would go into what they think their strategy is – and alternative strategies they may or may not use depending upon responding to defense changes.
westside raises a point that all should consider
Can justice be served in this case without the (option of the) death penalty?
I would urge people to consider the fact that the death penalty–for many years– was entirely outlawed in the U.S.
(Highly recommended reading: “The Executioner’s Song”; “Shot in the Heart”)
Amazon.com Review
The Executioner’s Song is a work of unprecedented force. It is the true story of Gary Gilmore, who in 1977 became the first person executed in the United States since the reinstitution of the death penalty. Gilmore, a violent yet articulate man who chose not to fight his death-penalty sentence, touched off a national debate about capital punishment. He allowed Norman Mailer and researcher Lawrence Schiller complete access to his story. Mailer took the material and produced an immense book with a dry, unwavering voice and meticulous attention to detail on Gilmore’s life–particularly his relationship with Nicole Baker, whom Gilmore claims to have killed. What unfolds is a powerful drama, a distorted love affair, and a chilling look into the mind of a murderer in his countdown with a firing squad.
Amazon.com Review
“I have a story to tell. It is a story of murder told from inside the house where murder is born. It is the house where I grew up, a house that, in some ways, I have never been able to leave.”
Mikal Gilmore is a Rolling Stone writer and the youngest brother of murderer Gary Gilmore, who became, in 1977, the first person to be executed in the United States after a 10-year hiatus, a case which was subsequently recounted in Norman Mailer’s The Executioner’s Song. This brave and eloquent book is the story that only Mikal Gilmore knows: the violence in multiple generations of his family, what the Gilmore house was like as he was growing up, his relationship with his brother, and his experience of the dramatic events surrounding Gary Gilmore’s determination to be executed as planned, without appeal. Shot in the Heart pulls off the rare feat of conveying intense emotion without sentimentality or self-pity. The author’s struggle is to set himself apart from the lurid true-crime fraternity of his father and brothers yet remain able to understand why he feels both guilty and lonely over his exclusion from his family’s violent history. –Fiona Webster