Posted on 07/05/2011 5:20:47 PM PDT by Mr. K
Now that her defense consisted of ADMITTING that the child died in her presense, then what happened to the body?
Who put the duct tape on?
WHO THREW IT INTO THE SWAMP?
That is correct. It would take an indictment. This case is over. The judge doesn’t serve that purpose.
doubvle jeopardy is when you cannot be tried AGAIN for the SAME offense
She was not charged with tampering with a body...
So that is my question- can she be?
Illegal dumping is a civil fine.
The Judge can ask the DA to investigate, but he can’t forward charges or anything like it.
Furthermore, a defense is not an admission. Only her statement is an admission.
Remember, the point of a trial is for the State to prove their case. Positing other theories than what the state proffers is just putting them to proof. It admits nothing.
Could a childrens advocacy organization file suit to ensure any profits from this event be it any form of media be given to a missing childrens fund or project.
Freepers are ignorant?
She could have been, but was not
So... now that her defense was that the girl fied in the pool, someone needs to be held accountable for throwing the body in a swamp
IT must have been and entire jury of Obama supporters
No, the judge is not going to do that. And the prosecution is not going to want another bite of this rotten apple. This woman is going become obscenely rich from this, but she is a vile person and her evil will catch up with her eventually.
Face it, this was just a stupid jury. It's really that simple. There are a lot of people that think the prosecution's burden is higher than it is supposed to be. Too many people watch CSI and Criminal Minds and have a distorted view of forensics and what trials typical look like. Too many people fail to understand that circumstantial cases are not unusual at all. You even read some of that sentiment here with the "well I wasn't 100% certain so she shouldn't be convicted" nonsense. Far too many people do not understand the prosecution's burden is reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty of guilt.
Actually, that’s not quite correct (was a Prosecutor for 25 years). You can not be tried for the same offense OR any lesser included offense arising from the same set of operative facts.
While there is an argument to be made that tampering is not a lesser included ... be assured the Court would likely rule that it is as it arises from the same set of operative facts.
The reason for this is to keep the State from doing something like charging you with First Degree ... losing ... coming back and charging you with Second Degree ... losing ... etc.
I really don’t know. One thing I do know is that the Anthonys won’t do it. Caylee was basically forgotten and discarded as trash. I was appalled yesterday when Jose Baez accused the prosecution of playing to emotions by showing a tiny video of Caylee. I thought she was the reason they were in that courtroom.
I must be wrong about that.
The Anthonys? They will keep their little shrine and ash urn, mollycoddle Casey as she abuses them, and write a book.
I myself will buy no book that profits any of them.
I believe the determinant for double jeopardy is similarity of charge, not operative facts. Otherwise the system could be easily subverted simply by filing wildly inapplicable charges and gaining acquital, and thus indemnification against appropriate charges. Think murder charges for theft, for example - you'd get acquited for murder, and be protected from being charged for theft, even though the evidence would convict you of theft.
AFAIK, the court would have to approve new charges after reviewing them for substantive difference from the previous charges. This is usually justified by the introduction of new evidence, but prosecutorial misconduct could suffice just as well.
Which is interesting, because the Casey Anthony prosecutor just resigned - effective immediately.
Shoot....
but thanks for that excellent explanation
It does make sense
Her parents might be able to file a civil suit against her...for their loss. It might at least bring the truth out.
I don’t think people understand reasonable doubt. They now think the prosecution has to remove any and all doubt.
DNA is great, but now people seem to want DNA proof in every case.
They are saying she drowned.
I blame the prosecutor not the Jury. He wanted a trophy on the wall and did not have the goods for murder1. He probably could have had a conviction on manslaughter or something similar.
While admitting she was there, she did not admit to disposing of the body. If there were to be charges along those lines, I suspect they had to be part of the trial to avoid the double jeopardy issue any additional charges face.
Evidence tampering?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.