The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law) - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2011, 07:07 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The proposed law is not limited to toddlers.
Arduinna is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-08-2011, 09:33 PM
 
VocalMinority's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: surrounded by testosterone
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

If you (general) can lose a toddler for over 24 hours without worry, panic, calling 911, etc., what does that really say about you as a parent?  Maybe it's just me and the people I associate with, but I've never known anyone to lose a child for over 24 hours and not report it.  Nor have I known anyone to lose their child for over 24 hours many times and not report it.  Lastly, this isn't simply a reaction to not reporting a missing child; this is a situation where a mother claimed their child was kidnapped from their hands and they didn't report it.  Again, I can't speak to the verbiage of this law in every state, but I still believe it is worth the "work".  Apparently over 700,000 people agree.

I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.

 

I'm not sure the law would be such a great idea.  How many parents can there be, who WOULDN'T panic and call police, if their child were missing?  It's hard to imagine parents (besides Casey Anthony) - even bad parents - who need a law to compel them to do this.  

 

Meanwhile, I can envision missing-child scenarios where there might be a delay in the parent realizing the child is missing, and such a law could then get in the way of a search.  Think of a teen who lies to her parents that she's spending the weekend at a friend's house...so no one realizes her secret boyfriend has done something foul with her, until Monday morning.  Or, a few times, my ex has kept our kids overnight when he was supposed to return them at bedtime.  He can be rotten about remembering to call and communicate about things, or even to answer his phone.  So, while I find it it's hard to sleep when this happens, I assume the kids are fine and will be home in the morning; and that calling police would be huge overkill and would seriously damage my relationship with my ex.  But hypothetically, what if he kidnapped them, or had a car wreck on the way to drop them off?  

 

If parents were breaking the law, if they took longer than 24 hours to call 9-1-1, sometimes you'd have police/prosecutors get frustrated about having no good leads in a missing-child case, who instead turn their attention to a problem they can solve...namely, persecuting the parents, for violating Caylee's Law and making sure the public blames the parents - not the cops - for the difficulty finding the kid.  I think the potential for this type of situation is much higher than the potential that other Casey Anthonys will come along, and be too slippery to get convicted of anything except violating "Caylee's Law".


One woman in a house full of men:  my soul mate:    or... twin sons:(HS seniors) ... step-son:  (a sophomore) ... our little man:   (a first grader) ... and there is another female in the house, after all:  our
VocalMinority is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 08:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

The proposed law is not limited to toddlers.


That is correct.  I used "toddler" in my example because that was the age range of the victim in this case.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post

 

I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.

 

I'm not sure the law would be such a great idea.  How many parents can there be, who WOULDN'T panic and call police, if their child were missing?  It's hard to imagine parents (besides Casey Anthony) - even bad parents - who need a law to compel them to do this.  

 

Meanwhile, I can envision missing-child scenarios where there might be a delay in the parent realizing the child is missing, and such a law could then get in the way of a search.  Think of a teen who lies to her parents that she's spending the weekend at a friend's house...so no one realizes her secret boyfriend has done something foul with her, until Monday morning.  Or, a few times, my ex has kept our kids overnight when he was supposed to return them at bedtime.  He can be rotten about remembering to call and communicate about things, or even to answer his phone.  So, while I find it it's hard to sleep when this happens, I assume the kids are fine and will be home in the morning; and that calling police would be huge overkill and would seriously damage my relationship with my ex.  But hypothetically, what if he kidnapped them, or had a car wreck on the way to drop them off?  

 

If parents were breaking the law, if they took longer than 24 hours to call 9-1-1, sometimes you'd have police/prosecutors get frustrated about having no good leads in a missing-child case, who instead turn their attention to a problem they can solve...namely, persecuting the parents, for violating Caylee's Law and making sure the public blames the parents - not the cops - for the difficulty finding the kid.  I think the potential for this type of situation is much higher than the potential that other Casey Anthonys will come along, and be too slippery to get convicted of anything except violating "Caylee's Law".


For your first statement, I can only speak for myself in saying, I know the law enough to know this petition (or law) will not change the outcome of the trial.  smile.gif 

 

To address the rest of your post, from what I've read, the proposed law (state-varying) is being drafted in a way to include "failure to report your child missing when you knew s/he is likely in danger".  (Some states are also proposing the law to include failing to report your child as deceased within one hour.)  I can understand where those words would be critical in scenarios of runaways, teens, etc.  As for the scenario you provided, again, that would not fit within what is being proposed to be covered by this law - your children are not lost (you know where they are) and you do not believe they are in danger (because they are with your ex-husband).  Now, that scenario could certainly get sticky depending upon the type of person your ex-husband is, but again, if you do not believe the child is in danger and have no reason to suspect as much, I do no believe that situation would be covered under Caylee's Law.  I don't even want to expand on that because the laws are still being written, proposed, etc., and I realize a lot of situations are unique, but I do not think that's the point of this law.

 

I'm not sure I understand the last paragraph of your post, but if you're suggesting the police will focus on charging the parents with something because they cannot find the child(ren), I certainly won't say that doesn't happen now (obviously not under Caylee's Law).  Look at the Zahra Baker case, and hell, look at this case.  I also believe that in most of those scenarios law enforcement believes the parents (or parent) were somehow involved.  Look at this case:  law enforcement believed Casey's lies about her child being kidnapped and it wasn't until she was caught in numerous lies that they started to look at her as the prime suspect.  I'm not suggesting this is always the case, but if a parent is not cooperating, if a parent is changing their story, and/or if evidence suggests they had something to do with it, yes, they may arrest that parent for failure to report their child missing (under Caylee's Law).  I'm, personally, okay with that.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 10:40 AM
 
DickTracy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Here are the pieces of evidence THAT proved pre-meditation. Three pieces of duct tape. The duct tape applied to the childs mouth in and by itself, proves pre-meditation. As you may or may not know, pre-meditation can be formed in a split-second. Read about it, if you don't believe me.

 

How about a search for "how to make chloroform", page bookmarked and visited 83 more times.

 

How about consciousness of guilt (deleting the firebox browsing history in the early morning hours of July 16th), and lying to LE about Zanny the Nanny.

 

By the way SSM, Juror #14 didn't know what was going on in the deliberations. He was an ALTERNATE, and alternates do not deliberate. He wasn't EVEN IN THE ROOM.  Did you know this?

 

This jury failed to follow the judges orders. They considered the penalty of each count in their discussions. They said the state didn't prove how she died, when she died, or why she died. Three things that are not required for them to consider, and was told by the judge NOT to consider.

 

If you are going to post your thoughts, here's a good tip. Research your post, before making a post.

 

Good day.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post


What peices of evidence proved pre-meditation?  Partying afterwards doesn't prove pre-meditation.  I really don't think the prosecutors had the evidence they needed.  It's terrible, but they didn't have the evidence.  Juror 14 has also spoken about the trial, and he said that he agreed with the verdict (he did not vote, b/c he was an alternate so he only sat through the trial and deliberations) b/c the prosecutor didn't prove anything, not how Caylee died, not who killed her, and he said that the entire family was really screwed up - but thats not a crime, and its not proof that a crime was committed.



 

DickTracy is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 12:13 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh I realize that, it also is the perfect example of the reasoning behind those that support this law. That it is a reaction to this one case, and their frustration that they couldn't get her on murder.

 

Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post


 


That is correct.  I used "toddler" in my example because that was the age range of the victim in this case.



 

Arduinna is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 01:01 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post



I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.

 

I'm not sure the law would be such a great idea.  How many parents can there be, who WOULDN'T panic and call police, if their child were missing?  It's hard to imagine parents (besides Casey Anthony) - even bad parents - who need a law to compel them to do this.  

 

Meanwhile, I can envision missing-child scenarios where there might be a delay in the parent realizing the child is missing, and such a law could then get in the way of a search.  Think of a teen who lies to her parents that she's spending the weekend at a friend's house...so no one realizes her secret boyfriend has done something foul with her, until Monday morning.  Or, a few times, my ex has kept our kids overnight when he was supposed to return them at bedtime.  He can be rotten about remembering to call and communicate about things, or even to answer his phone.  So, while I find it it's hard to sleep when this happens, I assume the kids are fine and will be home in the morning; and that calling police would be huge overkill and would seriously damage my relationship with my ex.  But hypothetically, what if he kidnapped them, or had a car wreck on the way to drop them off?  

 

If parents were breaking the law, if they took longer than 24 hours to call 9-1-1, sometimes you'd have police/prosecutors get frustrated about having no good leads in a missing-child case, who instead turn their attention to a problem they can solve...namely, persecuting the parents, for violating Caylee's Law and making sure the public blames the parents - not the cops - for the difficulty finding the kid.  I think the potential for this type of situation is much higher than the potential that other Casey Anthonys will come along, and be too slippery to get convicted of anything except violating "Caylee's Law".


I agree 100% with everything you said Jeannine.  I don't think laws that are the reaction to a single case should be laws.

 

The public can be angry all they want, but the fact is, the media put forth ONE perspective on this, and we didn't get Casey's side of the story through the media, b/c the media was busy declaring her a murderer.  Thats why the public isn't happy with the verdict - the juror's weren't selected from a group of people yelling "SHE'S GUILTY!!!!  KILL HER!!!!"  The jury was chosen out of a group of people that were able to remain objective in the case.  The public doesn't like that, b/c if THEY (the public) were on the jury they would have found her guilty - but thats why they weren't on the jury.

 

I get that people are pissed off, but there isn't much to be pissed off about.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 02:26 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post




Apparently you didn't actually listen to the what Juror #3 said when she went on GMA.  I didn't guess or assume; I copied, verbatim what she stated in that interview.  If you listened to or watched other jurors speak, you would hear exactly what they said and it is as I stated above.  And, no, they did not follow the law they were given, nor was it in their jury instructions.  And, yes, I have them.  When you say something incorrect, I'm going to correct you.  My apologies.

 

Do you know what dream team means?  Please look it up because these lawyers would not qualify as anything close to what the term "dream team" actually means.  Mason was the most well-known and well, I can bet most people weren't familiar with him prior to this trial.  Her team wasn't working for free, either.  And, winning one case does not a dream team make.  Baez was a lawyer for three years prior to this case.  Prior to that, most of his courtroom experience was related to his own child support issues with his ex-wife.


Edited to fix an embarrassing spelling error because I was in a rush.



I did see the entire interview with juror #3. I didn't say anything incorrect, but only some things that you disagree with. Your assumptions are all over this thread in every one of your posts and you're insisting to anyone who calls you on it that they are "facts". You were not on that jury. You were not in that courtroom. You don't know exactly what happened to Caylee. Facts.

 

These were death penalty-qualified jurors. Meaning, they all stated under oath that they wouldn't have a problem handing down a conviction in a capital case if that's what they had to do. 11 hours is not an abnormally short amount of time for jurors to deliberate, even in a capital case. Look up the real facts/stats on that.

 

Yes, I do know what "dream team" means.  As far as Casey was concerned, they WERE working for free. They were paid by the State-- NOT by her. And much of their work was done pro bono. Oh, and she was acquitted of all major charges under their representation. You are free to disagree with me about the term "dream team" being applicable but your opinion, once again, doesn't = fact. 


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 02:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

Oh I realize that, it also is the perfect example of the reasoning behind those that support this law. That it is a reaction to this one case, and their frustration that they couldn't get her on murder.

 


As a person who supports this law, please do not suggest I wouldn't support a law of that nature if this case were not about a toddler.  I don't know how you could extrapolate that from what I wrote, but your assumption is incorrect.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

I agree 100% with everything you said Jeannine.  I don't think laws that are the reaction to a single case should be laws.

 

The public can be angry all they want, but the fact is, the media put forth ONE perspective on this, and we didn't get Casey's side of the story through the media, b/c the media was busy declaring her a murderer.  Thats why the public isn't happy with the verdict - the juror's weren't selected from a group of people yelling "SHE'S GUILTY!!!!  KILL HER!!!!"  The jury was chosen out of a group of people that were able to remain objective in the case.  The public doesn't like that, b/c if THEY (the public) were on the jury they would have found her guilty - but thats why they weren't on the jury.

 

I get that people are pissed off, but there isn't much to be pissed off about.

 

 

It's a little, uh, silly to assume what "the public" thinks or feels, isn't it?  After all, you are part of the public and your opinion has shifted throughout this entire thread. 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

I did see the entire interview with juror #3. I didn't say anything incorrect, but only some things that you disagree with. Your assumptions are all over this thread in every one of your posts and you're insisting to anyone who calls you on it that they are "facts". You were not on that jury. You were not in that courtroom. You don't know exactly what happened to Caylee. Facts.

These were death penalty-qualified jurors. Meaning, they all stated under oath that they wouldn't have a problem handing down a conviction in a capital case if that's what they had to do. 11 hours is not an abnormally short amount of time for jurors to deliberate, even in a capital case. Look up the real facts/stats on that.

 

Yes, I do know what "dream team" means.  As far as Casey was concerned, they WERE working for free. They were paid by the State-- NOT by her. And much of their work was done pro bono. Oh, and she was acquitted of all major charges under their representation. You are free to disagree with me about the term "dream team" being applicable but your opinion, once again, doesn't = fact.


I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that.  I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee.  I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice).  Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths.  Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.

 

Actually, they never stated "they wouldn't have a problem" with enacting the death penalty.  I've already posted up-thread what several of them said regarding the death penalty and it was not I "wouldn't have a problem".  Again, fact, not assumption.  Further, I've already stated (I believe on this thread) that I would have never voted for the death penalty on this case, so I'm not sure what your point is.  And, I've never stated that 11 hours is an abnormally short amount of time for jurors to deliberate.  Read what I wrote and feel free to respond to that. 

 

Actually, Casey did put money towards her defense; she was later declared indigent.  Perhaps you need to look into that.  As for "dream team", I didn't make up the term nor the definition and just because you want to use it in a manner that is different than the definition doesn't make it a correct use of the term.  That has nothing to do with my opinion.  Sorry.

 

Edited to include one more response.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My opinion hasn't shifted.  I think the jury did their job, and that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony.  I don't know what happened to Caylee - clearly something did, and its possible (maybe even likely) that her mother was involved - but there is no proof of that.  I also don't think Caylee's law is a good idea, for the reasons Jeannine stated.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post


 

It's a little, uh, silly to assume what "the public" thinks or feels, isn't it?  After all, you are part of the public and your opinion has shifted throughout this entire thread. 

 

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 

Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl

 



Were you a juror?  Did you watch the trial as a spectator?  Were you an alternate juror?  If you were, THAT would be the failing of the judicial system, b/c clearly you are not seeing this case objectively.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 04:17 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So where is your activism thread from 5 years ago, IE before this case ever happened championing a law like this?

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 


As a person who supports this law, please do not suggest I wouldn't support a law of that nature if this case were not about a toddler.  I don't know how you could extrapolate that from what I wrote, but your assumption is incorrect.


 

 

 

Arduinna is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 05:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

"...We didn't get Casey's side of the story through the media, b/c the media was busy declaring her a murderer....

 


 

Did you watch any old interviews Jose Baez gave? 

 

(I'm not writing this directly to you based upon what you wrote, but I'm putting it here because it somewhat fits.  I just wanted to ensure that was clear.  I sometimes wonder if people believe that most or all defense attorneys or defense team members believe their client is not-guilty.) 

 

Hell, Cheney Mason basically said Casey was guilty prior to getting involved in this case.  I bet he watched too much Nancy Grace!  smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

My opinion hasn't shifted.  I think the jury did their job, and that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony.  I don't know what happened to Caylee - clearly something did, and its possible (maybe even likely) that her mother was involved - but there is no proof of that.  I also don't think Caylee's law is a good idea, for the reasons Jeannine stated.
 

 

I have already addressed the rest of your statements in other posts on this thread, and as for your opinions shifting, I was going to copy the inconsistencies, but really, I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to change your mind.  smile.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

Were you a juror?  Did you watch the trial as a spectator?  Were you an alternate juror?  If you were, THAT would be the failing of the judicial system, b/c clearly you are not seeing this case objectively.

 

None of the three and I won't expound on that.  However your last statement makes no sense if I were a juror or alternate (I was neither).  It is also assuming all spectators (if I were one) have formed an opinion on the case and aren't able to put that aside during the trial.  You continue the slippery slope of speaking for large groups of people.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

So where is your activism thread from 5 years ago, IE before this case ever happened championing a law like this?

 

 

 

To suggest I could have predicted the need for a law like this is utterly ridiculous.  Further, this law is being proposed much in the way other laws of its kind have been proposed - based upon circumstances in a particular case.  And, to continue to suggest that I'm only supporting a law because it stemmed from the death of a toddler is insulting, especially after I've stated my position.  If this law only protected toddlers, I would respect your insinuations. 

 

Also, we must have differing ideas on activism because adding some information (and links) in this thread and responding to people about the proposition hardly constitutes activism to me.  Yes, I support the law.  I added the information for Caylee's Law on this thread because the two are directly related.  If you have an issue with that addition, you're free to report it.  smile.gif

 

 

Edited for multi-quote hazard.  I had to move a statement to the correct spot.  Also removed the word "can" because it changed the meaning of what I was saying.)

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-10-2011, 09:19 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that.  I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee.  I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice).  Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths.  Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.

 

Edited to include one more response.


So you were in the courtroom? I'm confused. You do know that being in your living room and watching the trial on TV is not being in the courtroom, right? Now, what about the jury room? Am I making an incorrect assumption that you weren't in there as well?

 

One more thing, where is this "definition" of dream team that you're accusing me of getting so wrong?


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I thought we (in general) could all have an adult discussion about something like this, but it seems we all cannot.  I had some good discussions early on with those who disagreed with me and I enjoyed learning where they were coming from.  Since there is little being added to the discussion here, it has become a thread to trade snarky comments.  That isn't really my style (though I responded with my own snark!).  I do put thought into my statements so it's not really a wise investment of my time to continue to respond.  If it should turn back into a discussion thread, I would love to participate.


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

 

So you were in the courtroom? I'm confused. You do know that being in your living room and watching the trial on TV is not being in the courtroom, right? Now, what about the jury room? Am I making an incorrect assumption that you weren't in there as well?

 

One more thing, where is this "definition" of dream team that you're accusing me of getting so wrong?

 

 

Your assumption was correct that I was not in the jury room.  If I were, I think many of my points on this thread would be a little mind-boggling. wink1.gif That said, I didn't watch this trial from my living room, either. 

 

As for the definition of "dream team", here are some for you:

 

  • Dictionary.com: a number of persons of the highest ability associated in some joint action. 
  • Merriam-Webster:  a team whose members are preeminent in a particular field or a group of people who work or play a sport together and who are the best at what they do.
  • Cambridge Online Dictionary:  a group of people who have been specially chosen to work together and are considered to be the best at what they do.
  • Macmillan Dictionary:  a perfect team made up of the best players.
  • The Free Dictionary: a team or group whose members are among the most qualified or talented in their particular fields.

 

 

This team was not a dream team using any of the above definitions.  I don't really want to belabor the point, though, as this benefits no one. 

 

Edited:  Working on changing my font because it's huge.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 08:58 AM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

I thought we (in general) could all have an adult discussion about something like this, but it seems we all cannot.  I had some good discussions early on with those who disagreed with me and I enjoyed learning where they were coming from.  Since there is little being added to the discussion here, it has become a thread to trade snarky comments.  That isn't really my style (though I responded with my own snark!).  I do put thought into my statements so it's not really a wise investment of my time to continue to respond.  If it should turn back into a discussion thread, I would love to participate.


 

 

 

Your assumption was correct that I was not in the jury room.  If I were, I think many of my points on this thread would be a little mind-boggling. wink1.gif That said, I didn't watch this trial from my living room, either. 

 

As for the definition of "dream team", here are some for you:

 

  • Dictionary.com: a number of persons of the highest ability associated in some joint action. 
  • Merriam-Webster:  a team whose members are preeminent in a particular field or a group of people who work or play a sport together and who are the best at what they do.
  • Cambridge Online Dictionary:  a group of people who have been specially chosen to work together and are considered to be the best at what they do.
  • Macmillan Dictionary:  a perfect team made up of the best players.
  • The Free Dictionary: a team or group whose members are among the most qualified or talented in their particular fields.

 

 

This team was not a dream team using any of the above definitions.  I don't really want to belabor the point, though, as this benefits no one. 

 

Edited:  Working on changing my font because it's huge
 

 

I agree that the dream team point benefits no one. It was a throwaway comment. That's why I don't understand why you kept challenging me about it lol. Obviously I'm using the phrase in reference to the OJ Simpson trial, which is (I believe) when it started being used popularly to refer to a team of really good lawyers. Especially ones that you get you acquitted of murder when you have a pile of evidence against you.

 

I don't want to trade snark with you, Mulvah. I made a post disagreeing with your some of your conclusions and you used the little "laughing/hilarious" smiley in a condescending response that basically said: you're wrong, the jury was wrong, all of y'all who disagree with me are wrong, and I'm right. That is what I'm responding to.

 

So....were you or were you not in the courtroom? It's really a simple question.  


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:41 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If there was enough evidence to have convicted her on all counts, she would have been convicted.  And, you are incorrect about the sentence just after the bolded.  The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not!  The prosecution was under the impression that they had enough evidence, and they thought they would prevail.  But it is the jury's job to determine whether there is enough evidence or not - it is the prosecutions job to put forth their best case, and to present the evidence.  The prosecutor does not determine whether there is enough evidence to convict.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post


I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that.  I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee.  I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice).  Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths.  Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:
 The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not! 

Yes. Apparently some people struggle with the concept of innocent until proven guilty

 

 

 

Quote: 
I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts.  If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened 

 

 

If you used Mulvahs definition every single person ever on trial would automatically be guilty. 

 

 

 

 

Do I personally think she is innocent, no. That doesn't change the facts that our justice system assumes people innocent until proven guilty and in this case the jury did not find her guilty of killing her daughter. We can go round and round all we want, but it's done. 

Arduinna is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

For those interested, an article titled, "Americans Express Mixed Confidence in Criminal Justice System" is an interesting read. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

 

I agree that the dream team point benefits no one. It was a throwaway comment. That's why I don't understand why you kept challenging me about it lol. Obviously I'm using the phrase in reference to the OJ Simpson trial, which is (I believe) when it started being used popularly to refer to a team of really good lawyers. Especially ones that you get you acquitted of murder when you have a pile of evidence against you.

 

I don't want to trade snark with you, Mulvah. I made a post disagreeing with your some of your conclusions and you used the little "laughing/hilarious" smiley in a condescending response that basically said: you're wrong, the jury was wrong, all of y'all who disagree with me are wrong, and I'm right. That is what I'm responding to.

 

So....were you or were you not in the courtroom? It's really a simple question.  

 

I think many would agree that OJ Simpson did have a dream team, which is why that term was used.  smile.gif 

 

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me.  I enjoy learning from others, but I took issue with people (in general) assuming things or posting statements of fact that are not fact.  You're entitled to your opinion; your opinion will not change mine and vice versa.  smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

If there was enough evidence to have convicted her on all counts, she would have been convicted.  And, you are incorrect about the sentence just after the bolded.  The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not!  The prosecution was under the impression that they had enough evidence, and they thought they would prevail.  But it is the jury's job to determine whether there is enough evidence or not - it is the prosecutions job to put forth their best case, and to present the evidence.  The prosecutor does not determine whether there is enough evidence to convict.
 


So, do you think a jury always get it right?  I'm not speaking about this particular jury or case.  It seems we need to move beyond that if we're actually going to have a meaningful discussion.

 

Well, yes, a trial allows the prosecution to present the evidence that was admissible.  However, this case would not have gone to trial had there been no evidence that Casey committed a crime.  There is a reason MJOAs are actually granted. I never once suggested the prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence to convict, nor did I insinuate as much.  We should probably try sticking to what the other person actually wrote if we're going to discuss anything.

 

Also, you may want to read what I wrote to coffeegirl in context.  It was pretty clear I was defending what I said versus what I did not say, so you more or less took that the bolded statement out of context.  We can go back and forth on this all day long, but we will simply not agree.  That said, I would love to hear your answer to the first question if you're interested in having a discussion.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

If you used Mulvahs definition every single person ever on trial would automatically be guilty. 

 

 

People view evidence differently, specifically depending upon the type of evidence, which was clear in this case.  Enough evidence does not always equate to a guilty sentence.  Lack of evidence does not always equate to a not-guilty sentence, either.  It isn't that black and white.  If it were, we would never see a hung jury.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 12:41 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 


So, do you think a jury always get it right?

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

*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?
 


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 03:55 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

*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.

 


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

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!).


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

*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.  smile.gif

 

(*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.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 

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!).


 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 07:08 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

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)!  smile.gif

 

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?

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 03:53 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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).

 


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 06:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

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 thisNeither deal (directly) with this case.  According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9th 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.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 07:22 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

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 thisNeither deal (directly) with this case.  According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9th 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?


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

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.  smile.gif  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.  smile.gif 

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:33 PM
 
coffeegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a glaxy far, far away
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post



 


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.  smile.gif  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.  smile.gif


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.

 


caffix.gif
coffeegirl is offline  
Old 07-15-2011, 04:57 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post

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

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off