For those watching the Casey A. trial.....

[klmno]

Read the legal definition of felony murder that the judge presented. And in this country, almost all (if not 100%) people who qualify for jury duty would consider chloroforming or otherwise drugging a child for the purposes of knocking them out with a non-rx'd drug for selfish purposes and not physical health or MH of the child, child abuse.

 

[Malika]

??? Did I say anything about it not being child abuse? I did actually hear the judge summing up so am aware of the definition of felony murder.

 

[klmno]

Excuse me if I misunderstood. I took that you said you might have a problem determining 1st degree murder because it could have been an accidental overdose that killed her and that accidental overdose was most likely done by Casey in the back of the car. (My interpretation of what you said.) If that's the case, that accidental overdose (in this situation) is child abuse and that overdose causing the child's death qualifies as 1st degree murder. I didn't mean to insult you.

 

[Malika]

I listened to the judge summing up but not with all my attention, as I was also engaged with other things. If it is right that an "accidental overdose" leading to death constitutes felony murder, then I agree that the jurors would have little alternative to find that felony murder had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Doing a little internet research, I found the following:

Colorado's felony murder law and similar statutes in all 50 states
derive from the common law of England. The English doctrine of
felony murder, which makes all participants in a felonious
undertaking responsible for the homicidal acts of the other
perpetrators either during the commission of the crime or during
flight from the scene, dates back to 1535.

Therein lies part of the problem. At the time of the felony murder
rule's genesis, most felonies were punishable by death anyway, so
attributing responsibility to everyone involved in the underlying
crime for a death suffered during its commission was not all that
significant.

Times change. Parliament abolished the doctrine of felony murder in
1957, based on the recognition that the rule often had overly harsh
consequences. Not so in Colorado, although the list of predicate
crimes shrank to those most associated with bloodshed and was
limited to deaths occurring during the commission of a felony or
in "the immediate flight" from the scene.


I am now confused as to how the crime in this case, allegedly committed alone, could be classed as "felony murder"??

 

[Nancy]

I am a very forgiving person too but people have to accept the consequences of their behavior. We can argue whether we are for or against the death penalty but to commit a crime, receive a fair trial, be convicted, and not be punished for it just makes a joke of our justice system. There are twomembers on the jury now who said they have a hard time judging. Defense attorneys loves those jurors, prosecutors want them off the case. Who of us does not judge at times. I hear that from people frequently and then they turn around and make all kinds of judgements about things people do or say. I won't say what I really think of that statement about not wanting to judge because that gets into a whole different argument that we can't have here, but our justice system is built on judging whether a crime has or has not occurred and imposing the accompanying punishment. Do we allow people to kill other people and then not judge them, wait for them to die so they get judged then? We may as well get rid of our legal system including all law enforcements and then our difficult child's can run the world.

I believe forgiving someone is quite different than judging them guilty and having them face the consequences. If she is found guilty the Anthonys may some day forgive her. It happens all the time, so that the victims can go on living and leave behind the hate. If a crime is perpetrated on us, do we just want the police to forgive that person or do we want them to make that person be responsible for their actions.

I judge the thugs who got my difficult child into drugs years ago, I judge the druggie down the street who continues to harass us nightly by ringing our doorbell and kicking our door, cracking the frame and putting dents int he door, I judge the adults who provided my difficult child with alcohol and hid her from us. It will take me a while to forgive them, but I am not big enough to not judge them.

Nancy

 

[klmno]

The way I understood it, which sinched the case for me because I also had a drop of doubt about the premeditation, is that 1st degree murder can be found under 2 scenarios, one being the premeditation and intention. But the other is felony murder which means a person is commiting a felonious crime on another person and as a result, that person dies. The chloroforming of that child at the child's age and under the circumstances of just wanting to go party or have sex would be justification to find felonious/aggravated child abuse. If the child died as a result, that would qualify as felony murder. That's not even taking into consideration the duct tape.

on the other hand, it is possible that the jury still might have a problem going quite that far and can still find Casey guilty of BOTH aggravated child abuse AND manslaughter and give a sentence that would be as much as 30 years in prison for each one, for a total 0f 60 years, plus some years for each count of lieing to police, if I understand correctly. And Casey is in her 20's now, I think.

I think it's safe to say Casey isn't going to be free tonight.

 

[Malika]

Do we allow people to kill other people and then not judge them, wait for them to die so they get judged then? We may as well get rid of our legal system including all law enforcements and then our difficult child's can run the world.

Again my response is rather nonplussed... Did your post arise out of what I said, Nancy?? If so, I am again confused! I was of course in no way saying that we should allow people to kill other people and then not judge them...
Do please read again what I wrote

 

[Nancy]

No it did not Malika, actually I didn't even read your post yet. It was in reply to Star. I think you are being defensive.

klmno often they will have the sentences run concurrently so that the longest sentence is what is served and the others are served at the same time.

Nancy

 

[klmno]

I am now confused as to how the crime in this case, allegedly committed alone, could be classed as "felony murder"??

Simply put, in this country, if you are doing something criminal and something so stupid that most reasonable people know could lead to the death of another and your criminal act did in fact lead to the death of another, it is felony murder, if I understand correctly.

ETA: I tend to think this stems from understanding that some people just have a complete disregard for human life- it's not that they are necessarily trying to kill a person, it's that they didn't care. To some, that's just as bad. If someone sets fire to a building knowing people are in it, the person might not have intentionally tried to kill someone but the person obviously didn't care and they will be charged with murder, along with arson.

 

[klmno]

I got that Nancy, it can be a concurrent or sequential sentence either one, correct? Depending on the determination of whomever decides the punishment?? I was just trying to point out that a sequential sentence is possible.

 

[Nancy]

Yes you are right klmno.

Nancy

 

[Malika]

No it did not Malika, actually I didn't even read your post yet. It was in reply to Star. I think you are being defensive.

To quote the lawyers, I beg to submit that if one post appears directly after another, it is reasonable to assume that it is in reply to that post.

Anyway, I cannot speak for Star but I imagine no-one is saying that people should not be judged in courts of law for murder. We all want justice and fairness. Unfortunately, though, many horrendous crimes against the person go completely unpunished in this lifetime.

 

[Nancy]

Oh geez, Malika I think Star can speak for herself. If I misinterpreted what she said she will tell me, we go way back .

Nancy

 

[Malika]

Hmmm.... As I said, I am not speaking for Star!!
I think I am bowing out of this discussion before it gets any more complicated or fraught with strange misunderstandings.

 

[Nancy]

As husband and I were listening to the tape of Casey talking to her mother on the phone we both remarked how similar it was to the way our difficult child use to talk to us, down to the same words. Everyone talks about how Cindy was overbearing but Casey treated her parents like garbage. She bossed them around and demanded things and when they didn't jump she used vulgar language and acted out in spite. I did some research into some of the things that were not brought up in court and she sure was a difficult child and her parents have been having problems with her for years. I believe they were exasperated with her and suspected she was involved in Caylee's disappearance from the beginning. I put myself in their position and could see very well saying and doing the same things they did. So when they say the family was so dysfunctional I wonder which can first, were they dysfunctional first and that is why Casey islike she is or (like in our case) did Casey's gfgness cause the family dysfunction.

In any case I feel very sorry for that family and I hope they can somehow put their lives back together.

Nancy

 

[Nancy]

Why do you suppose Baez put George into the theory of defense? Unless that was what Casey told him and he believes her. But he could have just said Caylee accidently drowned and Casey found her and panicked and disposed of the body. By bringing George into it that just complicated it beyong belief. There never would have been a Roy Kronk problem and molestation by her father and brother. So many lies upon lies. I just don't understand why they put George into it, what did that do for them?

Nancy

 

[HaoZi]

Okay, felony murder and first degree are not the same thing, but in Florida they are subject to same possible sentences, and both can carry the death penalty.
The jury must agree on the charges, yes, but they can convict on one charge and hang up on another, and she'll be sentenced for the unanimous conviction and retry the hung one separately.
The jury does NOT have to be unanimous in sentencing - that's majority rules, and the judge does not have to go with what they decide. Now generally the higher the majority vote for the death penalty, the more likely it is to upheld by FSC and the 11th District (and summarily ignored by the USSC).

 

[Nancy]

klmno this is the way husband explained felony murder: murder that is not premeditated but is committed during a felong even if you did not intend to kill the person. So if by using chloroform the person dies the act of using chloroform on the child is child abuse and it resulted in a murder, so it's first degree murder, but not premeditated.

That may be exactly what you said buy I'm on my way out and haven't had a chance to go back and read it.

Nancy

 

[DammitJanet]

Nancy, I have been wondering that too. I think Cacey really out thought herself. Or maybe just outlied herself. Too many lies. I really think she just didnt have it in her to ever admit she did something wrong. ever. It would have been bad for her but if she had come forward even in August and said...omgosh, I am so sorry but I panicked when I found my baby dead in the pool and didnt know what to do. Even if that WAS a lie...maybe people would have thought different about her and she would have been offered a plea deal or even they would have believed it was an accident and she would have been found not guilty.

But no, she had to try for another big huge lie to make it sensational. After all, she thinks she is going to walk away scott-free and she can write a best selling novel.

 

[HaoZi]

Okay, here's another example of felony murder (I did a few reports on this doctrine in college, cases that abused it in in my opinion in good ways and in my opinion in bad ways): During the time of the Lindburgh kidnapping, kidnapping was a misdemeanor. Hauptman was convicted and sentenced to death under the felony-murder doctrine for the theft of little Charles's pajamas (which the kid was wearing at the time and buried in). The theft was a felony, though evidence (now) says the death was an accident. This was a stretch of the felony-murder doctrine, but one that in my opinion was a good abuse of it. Kidnapping became a more serious crime after this case.