The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law) - Page 5

[coffeegirl]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

*sigh*
I posted about this, and it seems to have disappeared, so I'll summarize.

What, exactly, is "Caylee's Law" supposed to accomplish? I don't see how it offers any extra protection for kids and can see some situations in which it might make things worse. Is it just that people think if this law had existed already, Casey would be in jail?
 

I think it's more that people are pissed and want to "do something!" so, enter "Caylee's Law". I will admit, I signed the petition in the OP....I was going off emotions and it seemed like a harmless enough law. As I understand it though, the laws that most if not all states have on the books already re: child neglect already cover what Caylee's Law would cover. Going back to Casey...I have heard several legal pundits say that if the prosecutors had put aggravated child neglect on the indictment instead of child abuse,  it's likely she could have been convicted of that charge (based on either the 31 days she waited before her mom called 911 and on the drowning in the pool story...again w/o callign 911) and the judge could have given her more than 4 years. I don't know how true that is given the evidence in the trial; I wasn't in the courtroom like Mulvah was. But thnking about it now, I wish I hadn't signed the petition because I don't see how the laws against child neglect don't cover the same territory, without all the exceptions and red tape and money of a new law having to be passed.

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I don't think jury's always get it right.  I'm an attorney - if I ever actually practice law I will be trying to convince juries and judges of MY CLIENTS perspective to "win" or whatever.  The prosecutor in this case did a bad job of that - but I don't think he had enough evidence to proceed with the charges that he did.

One of the things I learned in law school, is that whether we like it or not, juries have the power to nullify the law.  On one hand, it sucks b/c they aren't following the law.  On the other, the alternative is not to use juries, which we can't do b/c of the way our constitution is written.  And I don't believe there is a better alternative to having a jury.

What type of law are you looking to practice?

I do think there is something to be said for professional juries, but I do not see that change occurring in this country anytime soon (if ever!).

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

*sigh*
I posted about this, and it seems to have disappeared, so I'll summarize.

What, exactly, is "Caylee's Law" supposed to accomplish? I don't see how it offers any extra protection for kids and can see some situations in which it might make things worse. Is it just that people think if this law had existed already, Casey would be in jail?
 

I won't speak for the 1,000,000+ that have signed the petition, but for me, no, that isn't the reason I support this law.  The reality is, Casey is already a convicted felon and she will be released in a week or so.  Further, there is nothing to suggest the sentencing period for violating Caylee's Law would exceed 18 months or a hefty fine.  Neither of those punishments were (likely) going to prevent Casey from leaving jail next week. 

That said, I don't know what each state will include or what, if any of it, would pass, but currently Florida is looking to include "failure to report your child missing (within 24 hours) when you knew s/he was likely in danger" in Caylee's Law.  Another portion will deal with reporting a child as deceased within one hour.  In my opinion and with the frequency of family homicide, this law is important because you have situations where parents do not assist law enforcement in a missing child case or aren't reporting their child as deceased within a reasonable time frame.  When that happens, it clearly makes it difficult to proceed, specifically if you have no solid evidence.  Further, it would allow law enforcement officers to charge the person immediately and there can be benefits to that.  Being charged can also get suspects to speak more freely (Elisa Baker is an example of that), especially if you are still working on the details of the disappearance or death.  That isn't to say that law enforcement doesn't currently charge suspects with other crimes (Casey Anthony, John Skelton*, and Elisa Baker are all examples of that), but sometimes, you just can't charge a suspect with a crime  (Melinda Duckett is an example of this, though she committed suicide).  There are many reasons why I believe this is an important law, but the above explains some of them.  Sadly, there are just too many cases where parents (and/or caretakers) murder their children.

I can understand how some people feel this would "clog the system" or somehow convict innocent people due to extenuating circumstances, but I do not believe those cases are the norm.  I also do not believe there will be a flood of cases with this charge included, though I'm open to being proven wrong. 

(*I do not know that he would or could have been charged under Caylee's Law because the bodies of the children involved were never found and his ex-wife is the one that reported them missing.)

Edited to add more sensitive language.

Edited by Mulvah - 7/11/11 at 4:30pm

[Super~Single~Mama]

I don't know what type of law I want to practice, or if I even want to practice in the traditional sense. 

I do disagree with professional juries however, b/c people are entitled to a jury of their PEERS, and professional juries would require that jurors be educated in how to be a juror - which would create a bias in and of itself I believe.

Anyway, a friend posted this article earlier, and I thought it was a good read.  http://www.slate.com/id/2299039
 

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

What type of law are you looking to practice?

I do think there is something to be said for professional juries, but I do not see that change occurring in this country anytime soon (if ever!).

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I don't know what type of law I want to practice, or if I even want to practice in the traditional sense. 

I do disagree with professional juries however, b/c people are entitled to a jury of their PEERS, and professional juries would require that jurors be educated in how to be a juror - which would create a bias in and of itself I believe.

Anyway, a friend posted this article earlier, and I thought it was a good read.  http://www.slate.com/id/2299039
 

Good luck with your decision(s)! 

I have always hated the phrase “a jury of your peers”.  A “jury of peers” is not a Constitutional right; an “impartial jury” is.  And, juries are not always comprised of peers.  This article discusses professional juries and it outlines some of my same feelings.  I believe education is precisely what is needed to render fair results.  I can even see the benefit in an educated, impartial jury foreman that guides the jurors during deliberation. 

Thanks for sharing the article.  I specifically found her closing interesting, “If we are going to take the position that courts eventually find the truth, we must accept the reality that all plaintiffs—not just the ones you like, or the ones I find sympathetic—deserve their day there.”  She goes on to say, “Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time.”

Well, I do not necessarily believe our system is designed to find the truth.  Here is an article that sums up some of my feelings on “finding the truth”; the author says that trials in the U.S. are like sporting events (specifically high-publicity trials), whereas, in other countries, they place a higher value on the prosecution and defense working together to uncover the truth.  Isn’t that what it should really be about?  If juries don’t get it right (maybe) most of the time (according to Lithwick), where does that leave us?

[coffeegirl]

But we have no complaints with the jury system when they seem to "work" and give us a verdict that makes sense to/agrees with the general public, yk? I think in this case, the prosecution really should have done more. In the closing, specifically, they should have hammered the evidence they had instead of focusing on CA's really bizarre behavior.

I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

But we have no complaints with the jury system when they seem to "work" and give us a verdict that makes sense to/agrees with the general public, yk? I think in this case, the prosecution really should have done more. In the closing, specifically, they should have hammered the evidence they had instead of focusing on CA's really bizarre behavior.

I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).

I'm not sure who this "we" is you are speaking for.  If you haven't read any of the articles I've posted, you may enjoy reading this or this.  Neither deal (directly) with this case.  According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9^th place on Gallup's 2011 Confidence in Institutions measure, out of 16 institutions rated."  Super~Single~Mama shared an interesting article and the author closed by saying, "Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time" and I, personally, think that's worth "complaining" about.

Why you're hearing about the outrage is because this is a very public case.  You won't necessarily have millions of people outraged when only 1,000 people were aware of any one particular case. 

Do you think justice was served in the Scott Peterson trial? 

No, double jeopardy would be an issue. Also, you may not be aware, but they did charge her with aggravated manslaughter and the State was required to prove the following:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. 

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

It is my opinion that she wouldn't have been found guilty of neglect by this incompetent jury based upon the above charge.  As far as anyone else bringing a charge against her, she could be federally prosecuted, but that won't happen.  What is happening is a flurry of civil lawsuits against her.

[coffeegirl]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

I'm not sure who this "we" is you are speaking for.  If you haven't read any of the articles I've posted, you may enjoy reading this or this.  Neither deal (directly) with this case.  According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9^th place on Gallup's 2011 Confidence in Institutions measure, out of 16 institutions rated."  Super~Single~Mama shared an interesting article and the author closed by saying, "Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time" and I, personally, think that's worth "complaining" about.

Why you're hearing about the outrage is because this is a very public case.  You won't necessarily have millions of people outraged when only 1,000 people were aware of any one particular case. 

Do you think justice was served in the Scott Peterson trial? 

No, double jeopardy would be an issue. Also, you may not be aware, but they did charge her with aggravated manslaughter and the State was required to prove the following:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. 

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

It is my opinion that she wouldn't have been found guilty of neglect by this incompetent jury based upon the above charge.  As far as anyone else bringing a charge against her, she could be federally prosecuted, but that won't happen.  What is happening is a flurry of civil lawsuits against her.

By we I mean "us"- the general public. Thank you, I did read the blogs you've posted. About Scott Peterson....AFAIK there haven't been any appeals of his conviction aside from the automatic death sentence appeal, so I'm assuming he did get a fair trial. I know that it was a circumstantial case and that he was judged in large part on his behavior. Doesn't change my belief that CA also got a fair trial. 

Re: the last part....does double jeopardy apply to my question because CA has already been charged with child neglect in '08 or because child neglect is part of the aggravated manslaughter charge that she was acquitted on?

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

By we I mean "us"- the general public. Thank you, I did read the blogs you've posted. About Scott Peterson....AFAIK there haven't been any appeals of his conviction aside from the automatic death sentence appeal, so I'm assuming he did get a fair trial. I know that it was a circumstantial case and that he was judged in large part on his behavior. Doesn't change my belief that CA also got a fair trial. 

Re: the last part....does double jeopardy apply to my question because CA has already been charged with child neglect in '08 or because child neglect is part of the aggravated manslaughter charge that she was acquitted on?

In the second article I linked to, you would see that most of the general public was unhappy with the justice system long before the verdict on this trial went public.    I can only guess the verdict of this case furthered that dissatisfaction.

Odd, you assume he got a fair trial (I don't understand how you would base that on his appeal status.) even though you believe it was largely based on his behavior.  It was a pretty weak case in terms of evidence.  I will simply say Lithwick's statement on juries is very likely the reason most people don't have much faith in our justice system; juries get it wrong "maybe most of the time".  The expectation for juries to understand the law (and correctly apply it) is like getting a 20-minute crash course from a CPA and being expected to run a company on that alone.

As for double jeopardy, yes, it is because she was acquitted of a similar charge.  As people always say regarding double jeopardy, she can hold a press conference tomorrow telling everyone she murdered her child and she would still be free.   

[coffeegirl]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

In the second article I linked to, you would see that most of the general public was unhappy with the justice system long before the verdict on this trial went public.    I can only guess the verdict of this case furthered that dissatisfaction.

Odd, you assume he got a fair trial (I don't understand how you would base that on his appeal status.) even though you believe it was largely based on his behavior.  It was a pretty weak case in terms of evidence.  I will simply say Lithwick's statement on juries is very likely the reason most people don't have much faith in our justice system; juries get it wrong "maybe most of the time".  The expectation for juries to understand the law (and correctly apply it) is like getting a 20-minute crash course from a CPA and being expected to run a company on that alone.

As for double jeopardy, yes, it is because she was acquitted of a similar charge.  As people always say regarding double jeopardy, she can hold a press conference tomorrow telling everyone she murdered her child and she would still be free. 

People always say that?! That is exactly what my mom told me when I saw the verdict and called to ask her about the possibility of her being re-tried.. I thought it was a mom "original". Sigh.

Anyhow, I have only heard (Court TV pundits and whatnot) that his behavior after Laci disappeared was a factor in their decision. At the end of the day though, the two cases are not exactly the same, even though they were both high profile circumstantial murder cases. As for SP receiving a fair trial, I have no reason assume otherwise.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).

They would not be allowed to try her under Caylee's Law, but not b/c of double jeopardy.  It would be an "ex post facto" law, which is unconstitutional, and which basically means that you can't try someone for something they did, that wasn't a crime when they did it.  Does that make sense?  So, since Caylee's Law wasn't an actual law when Caylee died (or was in the care of her mother), CA can't be tried under it.  Only people who take an action against the law, after it becomes law, can be tried under that law.  It's not the same as double jeopardy, b/c that says that you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

Other claims, though, that are similar, would be barred by res judicata, which is "claim preclusion", and prevents a matter from being litigated after already being decided.  Then there's Collateral Estoppel, which refers to "issue preclusion", and prevents the re-litigation of a particular issue.  So, once an issue of fact has been decided by a jury, it cannot be re-litigated if the parties did not like the result (unless there are grounds for appeal, which I don't understand fully b/c I don't have any experience with appeals).  It's kind of complicated, and I'm not super great at all the little pieces yet, but its a starting point.

I generally don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but this page actually does a pretty good job of explaining what ex post facto laws are, and what it means.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Edited by Super~Single~Mama - 7/15/11 at 4:10am

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

People always say that?! That is exactly what my mom told me when I saw the verdict and called to ask her about the possibility of her being re-tried.. I thought it was a mom "original". Sigh.

Anyhow, I have only heard (Court TV pundits and whatnot) that his behavior after Laci disappeared was a factor in their decision. At the end of the day though, the two cases are not exactly the same, even though they were both high profile circumstantial murder cases. As for SP receiving a fair trial, I have no reason assume otherwise.

I'm sorry to have disillusioned you.      (I'm joking.)

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

They would not be allowed to try her under Caylee's Law, but not b/c of double jeopardy.  It would be an "ex post facto" law, which is unconstitutional, and which basically means that you can't try someone for something they did, that wasn't a crime when they did it.  Does that make sense?  So, since Caylee's Law wasn't an actual law when Caylee died (or was in the care of her mother), CA can't be tried under it.  Only people who take an action against the law, after it becomes law, can be tried under that law.  It's not the same as double jeopardy, b/c that says that you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

Other claims, though, that are similar, would be barred by res judicata, which is "claim preclusion", and prevents a matter from being litigated after already being decided.  Then there's Collateral Estoppel, which refers to "issue preclusion", and prevents the re-litigation of a particular issue.  So, once an issue of fact has been decided by a jury, it cannot be re-litigated if the parties did not like the result (unless there are grounds for appeal, which I don't understand fully b/c I don't have any experience with appeals).  It's kind of complicated, and I'm not super great at all the little pieces yet, but its a starting point.

I generally don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but this page actually does a pretty good job of explaining what ex post facto laws are, and what it means.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

The first paragraph is true if the OP is referring to Caylee's Law, which isn't a law at this time.  The OP said, "...Could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her?", which I read to mean a charge of child neglect, not the proposed Caylee's Law.  

I do not know that res judicata would apply in this case, though I would have to research that.  It is possible it would apply because a charge of child neglect could have been included, but I'm not sure if that would apply in this particular case.  I do not believe collateral estoppel would apply to a child neglect charge. 

[coffeegirl]

Thanks for the legal break down, SSM.

So on the news this morning: Casey Anthony is appealing the four convictions of lying to law enforcement.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

The first paragraph is true if the OP is referring to Caylee's Law, which isn't a law at this time.  The OP said, "...Could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her?", which I read to mean a charge of child neglect, not the proposed Caylee's Law.  

I do not know that res judicata would apply in this case, though I would have to research that.  It is possible it would apply because a charge of child neglect could have been included, but I'm not sure if that would apply in this particular case.  I do not believe collateral estoppel would apply to a child neglect charge. 

I believe that Collateral Estoppel would apply here, b/c all of the facts surrounding Caylee's death (including everything that CA did before, and during the month that Caylee was missing) have been litigated before a jury.  And, wasn't there an "aggravated neglect" charge included in the lesser charges that we were arguing about before?  If I'm remembering correctly, then res judicata could apply as well, and probably would.

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

So on the news this morning: Casey Anthony is appealing the four convictions of lying to law enforcement.

I'm not surprised - anyone convicted of a crime gets their first appeal as a matter of right.  So, pretty much everyone appeals.

[Mulvah]

I can't link to it, but there is an article I read earlier from a retired Judge who believes the justice system typically works, the verdict was wrong (specifically on all lesser charges), and that the lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence is to blame for the verdict.  I thought it was an interesting perspective and I can't help but hope it changes the way future instructions are given.

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I believe that Collateral Estoppel would apply here, b/c all of the facts surrounding Caylee's death (including everything that CA did before, and during the month that Caylee was missing) have been litigated before a jury.  And, wasn't there an "aggravated neglect" charge included in the lesser charges that we were arguing about before?  If I'm remembering correctly, then res judicata could apply as well, and probably would.

I thought we disagreed on the aggravated manslaughter charge.   I am away from home and cannot access my remote connection, so it takes for-e-ver for things to load, but if she was charged with aggravated neglect, then yes, clearly collateral estoppel would apply, as would double jeopardy. 
 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

I thought we disagreed on the aggravated manslaughter charge.   I am away from home and cannot access my remote connection, so it takes for-e-ver for things to load, but if she was charged with aggravated neglect, then yes, clearly collateral estoppel would apply, as would double jeopardy. 
 

You're right, my memory isn't working right now, I blame ds.  Anyway, if she was charged with aggravated neglect, Res Judicata would apply b/c thats "claim preclusion" and would bar other neglect charges.

Collateral Estoppel bars the same issues of fact from being litigated again - and all of the events leading up to Caylee's disappearance, and all of CA's acts after Cayelee's disappearance have already been argued in a court of law, and so the issues of fact cannot be re-argued.  At least that's my understanding of it.

[Mulvah]

Here is the article I mentioned earlier.  It's definitely something to think about (regarding circumstantial evidence) and in all his years, he only experienced two verdicts he deemed incorrect.  Interesting, considering he has had quite a bit of experience.  I don't necessarily agree that juries are wrong that infrequently, but I can't argue with his experience. 
 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

You're right, my memory isn't working right now, I blame ds.  Anyway, if she was charged with aggravated neglect, Res Judicata would apply b/c thats "claim preclusion" and would bar other neglect charges.

Collateral Estoppel bars the same issues of fact from being litigated again - and all of the events leading up to Caylee's disappearance, and all of CA's acts after Cayelee's disappearance have already been argued in a court of law, and so the issues of fact cannot be re-argued.  At least that's my understanding of it.

Without researching the elements of res judicata, I would have to take your word for it because I'm just not sure.  It's moot if she was already charged with aggravated neglect.

I'm not disagreeing with you that collateral estoppel would apply on neglect charges if she were already acquitted of aggravated neglect.  A Judge can order a retrial (based on unusual circumstances involving severe errors), but that will not occur.  Federal prosecution will not occur, either.  This case is closed and the only thing to do is to learn and move forward.

[mar123]

Question for the legal eagles out there:

Many people who convicted crimes against people during the Civil Right's movement were found not guilty when tried in their states. YEARS later, they were tried in federal courts and found guilty. I know they were tried under federal statutes, but how was the government able to do that, but has no recourse in this case?

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by mar123 

Question for the legal eagles out there:

Many people who convicted crimes against people during the Civil Right's movement were found not guilty when tried in their states. YEARS later, they were tried in federal courts and found guilty. I know they were tried under federal statutes, but how was the government able to do that, but has no recourse in this case?

Generally speaking, the dual sovereignty doctrine would allow Casey to face federal prosecution.  It's pretty questionable and I do not believe it will happen.

[coffeegirl]

What I'm still unclear on is was CA ever actually charged with aggravated neglect? I'm pretty sure she was, to start with, after the interrogation at Universal Studios....(or maybe it was just neglect.) But what happened to those charges when they subsequently charged her with murder? Did the child neglect charge just go away, or was it "transferred" (for lack of a better/more correct word) into the murder indictment? Or was she charged, convicted and served her time on the child neglect thing while the murder investigation and trial process was underway?