Casey Anthony

[Sarah G]

During deliberations, how much does/should a juror's "gut" weigh into the decision making process?

The instructions, I believe, are to base the verdict on facts - so does a juror sometimes vote against their gut instincts because of facts? And in the abscence of facts, can they convict because their gut tells them guilty?

Anybody know?

Powerful closing arguments.

There isn't an absence of facts, there is simply circumstancial evidence. Direct evidence is rare.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

During deliberations, how much does/should a juror's "gut" weigh into the decision making process?

The instructions, I believe, are to base the verdict on facts - so does a juror sometimes vote against their gut instincts because of facts? And in the abscence of facts, can they convict because their gut tells them guilty?

Anybody know?

Powerful closing arguments.

There isn't an absence of facts, there is simply circumstancial evidence. Direct evidence is rare.

Thank you Sarah, but this doesn't answer my question.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

During deliberations, how much does/should a juror's "gut" weigh into the decision making process?

The instructions, I believe, are to base the verdict on facts - so does a juror sometimes vote against their gut instincts because of facts? And in the abscence of facts, can they convict because their gut tells them guilty?

Anybody know?

Powerful closing arguments.

I have served on exactly one criminal jury. It was both exhilarating and frightening.
There were three guys on there who didn't give a rip about the facts. Mexican was enough. Most of the argument was about how much we could trust the stories of the defendants. Based on some really off the wall features of how they comported themselves, we figured they were lying. (Both of the defendants needed an interpeter, but one of them corrected the interpeter on a fine point of english grammar which for some reason really bugged several of the jurors.)

And we had an elderly TM type, sort of wooly headed that no one paid much attention to, but the foreman (one of the worst in the bigotry area) called on her for her opinion, and in about 75 words she summed up both sides cases and pretty much showed the defense was a load of BS, and that pretty much ended deliberation.

So in my experience, there will be a lot of debate on how much the witnesses can be trusted, how much of what they have been told by whom is the truth, and they will come to a mostly fact based conclusion. For a given level of fact based, given how much they trust each witness.

 

[oldsalt]

Plain and simple. The prosecution didn't do it. Is she guilty? Fuck yeah, but of higher crimes then we can prosecute.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Plain and simple. The prosecution didn't do it. Is she guilty? Fuck yeah, but of higher crimes then we can prosecute.

Hey Salty - you are on to something interesting here, can you elaborate? I haven't had enough coffee yet!

 

[WillowTree]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

I am desperately trying to deal with this post. I come from the land of Vincent Lee. You know the guy who went off his meds, decides to kill a carney kid on a bus going home to see his parents, and Vinny, off his meds Vinny, not only decides to kill the kid, but whoa whoa whoa, Vinny decides to behead him.

All on a greyhound bus. Now it actually freaking gets better. Now that Vinny has sawed the kids head off now he decides he's hungry.

Yes folks, guess what's up freaking next. Vinny is hungry. He decapitates the kid and then starts to eat him. The freaking RCMP are not allowed to blow him away. The bus driver has the door pinned. Every one can see him eating the kid.

They are now trying to get him day passes into Selkirk because he was declared not guilty because of mental incapatitation and apparently he needs fresh air.........

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense

I remember that. It was in Canada. And Vinny is resting comfortable in a hospital bed right? Watching TV. Three square a day, Pampered and peaceful.

 

[strollingbones]

On May 30, 2011, the CBC reported that Vince Li is responding well to his psychiatric treatment and that his doctor has recommended that he'll receive more freedoms, phased in over several months. [28]

aint that some scarey mal....

Murder of Tim McLean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[strollingbones]

On May 30, 2011, the CBC reported that Vince Li is responding well to his psychiatric treatment and that his doctor has recommended that he'll receive more freedoms, phased in over several months. [28]

aint that some scarey mal....

Murder of Tim McLean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldsalt]

Plain and simple. The prosecution didn't do it. Is she guilty? Fuck yeah, but of higher crimes then we can prosecute.

Hey Salty - you are on to something interesting here, can you elaborate? I haven't had enough coffee yet!

Trial of the century. She'll walk.

 

[oldsalt]

She's guilty as fuck, but Sunny and Mel have been right all along. The PT did not prove their case.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

She's guilty as fuck, but Sunny and Mel have been right all along. The PT did not prove their case.

even the child endangerment charge? which is still a capital crime in florida.

this has been the sticky point for me.

 

[Sunshine]

She's guilty as fuck, but Sunny and Mel have been right all along. The PT did not prove their case.

even the child endangerment charge? which is still a capital crime in florida.
this has been the sticky point for me.

Can you cite the rule of law on the highlighted portion. I know of no place in this country where a person can be sentenced to death for a crime in which a death has not occurred.

 

[Sunshine]

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

I am desperately trying to deal with this post. I come from the land of Vincent Lee. You know the guy who went off his meds, decides to kill a carney kid on a bus going home to see his parents, and Vinny, off his meds Vinny, not only decides to kill the kid, but whoa whoa whoa, Vinny decides to behead him.

All on a greyhound bus. Now it actually freaking gets better. Now that Vinny has sawed the kids head off now he decides he's hungry.

From CNN, just today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/02/insanity.defense/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yes folks, guess what's up freaking next. Vinny is hungry. He decapitates the kid and then starts to eat him. The freaking RCMP are not allowed to blow him away. The bus driver has the door pinned. Every one can see him eating the kid.

They are now trying to get him day passes into Selkirk because he was declared not guilty because of mental incapatitation and apparently he needs fresh air.........

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense

I remember that. It was in Canada. And Vinny is resting comfortable in a hospital bed right? Watching TV. Three square a day, Pampered and peaceful.

Anyone who holds that perception of a state psychiatric facility is sorely mistaken.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Sorry Sunshine good call, Aggravated Child Abuse - not endangerment. I wrote too quickly.

So, let's just say the jury buys into the GA/ICA cover-up. Under the pretense they were both too scared of Cindy to be honest about an accidental drowning, they hid the whole thing. What, if any, of the current charges, would you think the jury will convict ICA?

Casey Anthony is facing four charges against her in her murder trial involving her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony: aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, first degree murder and providing false information to law enforcement.

Aggravated child abuse; death penalty still applies: Florida Capital Punishment Laws - FL Capital Punishment Laws - State Laws, Codes

Capital Homicide Capital felony committed by person serving sentence of imprisonment or under community control; previous capital felony or felony using or threat of violence; knowingly created great risk of death to many persons; the capital felony was committed while defendant was engaged in, was an accomplice, in commission of or attempt to commit or flight after committing or attempt to commit any robbery, sexual battery, aggravated child abuse, aggravated abuse of a disabled or elderly person, aggravated stalking, carjacking, arson, burglary, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bombings; capital felony for purposes of avoiding lawful arrest or effecting escape from custody; capital felony for pecuniary gain; capital felony to hinder lawful exercise of governmental function or enforcement of laws; capital felony especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; premeditated homicide; victim of capital felony was public official or law enforcement officer engaged in official duties; victim of capital murder was less than 12 years old; criminal felony committed by a criminal street gang member

Aggravated manslaughter of a child; death penalty still applies
Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVI Crimes Section 782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(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.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



First degree murger same as above aggravated child abuse

Providing false information to law enforcement appears to be a misdemeanor: 18-5413 PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, OR SPECIFIED PROFESSIONALS. :: CHAPTER 54 PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY :: TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS :: 2010 Idaho Code :: Idaho Code :: US Codes and Sta

TITLE 18

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 54

PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

18-5413. Providing false information to law enforcement officers, government agencies, or specified professionals. (1) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer, any state or local government agency or personnel, or to any person licensed in this state to practice social work, psychology or counseling, concerning the commission of an offense, knowing that the offense did not occur or knowing that he has no information relating to the offense or danger.

(2) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he knowingly gives or causes to be given false information regarding his or another’s identity to any law enforcement officer investigating the commission of an offense.

So to answer OldSalt what will stick? well for sure the false information charge and possible aggravated negligence because is caylee drowned, isn't that negligence?

 

[Sunshine]

Quote:
However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense

I don't believe the insanity defense was in the pleadings of this trial. There were aspects of the defense which were designed to show propensity to kill by others, but insanity is called an affirmative defense, and must be part of the initial pleadings.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wharfrat]

Quote:
However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense

I don't believe the insanity defense was in the pleadings of this trial. There were aspects of the defense which were designed to show propensity to kill by others, but insanity is called an affirmative defense, and must be part of the initial pleadings...

It wasn't, which is exactly my point. Did you not read the part where I said she didn't raise insanity as an affirmative defense right there where you quoted me?

 

[wharfrat]

She's guilty as fuck, but Sunny and Mel have been right all along. The PT did not prove their case.

even the child endangerment charge? which is still a capital crime in florida.

this has been the sticky point for me.

Aggravated child abuse is how they are going to get there, in my opinion. There isn't enough to get there on premeditation I don't think.

 

[Sarah G]

I notice the defense is ignoring the 31 days..

 

[Sunshine]

Quote:
However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense

I don't believe the insanity defense was in the pleadings of this trial. There were aspects of the defense which were designed to show propensity to kill by others, but insanity is called an affirmative defense, and must be part of the initial pleadings...

It wasn't, which is exactly my point. Did you not read the part where I said she didn't raise insanity as an affirmative defense right there where you quoted me?

Actually yes, after I posted. Didn't have the ambition to go back and change. But most folks don't know what an affirmative defense is, or how it gets into a trial. Most tend to think insanity is something the jury cooks up.

 

[wharfrat]

I don't believe the insanity defense was in the pleadings of this trial. There were aspects of the defense which were designed to show propensity to kill by others, but insanity is called an affirmative defense, and must be part of the initial pleadings...

It wasn't, which is exactly my point. Did you not read the part where I said she didn't raise insanity as an affirmative defense right there where you quoted me?

Actually yes, after I posted. Didn't have the ambition to go back and change. But most folks don't know what an affirmative defense is, or how it gets into a trial. Most tend to think insanity is something the jury cooks up.

Sorry Sunshine, I didn't mean to sound rude...I could have put that better. You're right; most people don't understand the law very well, but claim to be in-the-know.