Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Crazy, we now need a law to report kids missing?! Love it...
In the United States, and most common-law countries, it's never been a crime to witness a crime and not report it. Most Europeans countries have laws against that.
Okay, I am trying to learn a little more about Florida criminal law.
So in this short article about a FL criminal case, it sounds like if the jury wanted a clarification, the judge, prosecution and defense should have gotten together and decided on the further explanation, then the judge would have spoken the agreed upon further explanation and everything would have been ok?
If so, would this have this been available to the CA jury?
Be kind - I've never had dealings with the courts (knock wood)
This is interesting..."Juliette Lewis" one of Casey's fictional friends...The movie she was in, "Too Young to Die"....hmmm...interesting coincidence.... An abused 15 year old is charged with a murder that carries the death penalty in this fact-based story. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100797/
Last edited by jasper12; 07-06-2011 at 04:30 PM..
Reason: added link
The first amendment give jurors a right to free speech (including publishers that print books) and freedom of contract (Article I, section 10) gives them a right to profit off of that speech. There is a fundamental right.
I would actually be interested in what they have to say.
How interested would you be to hear what they have to say if they had found her "guilty" of killing Caylee? The same amount of interest, more, or less?
Okay, I am trying to learn a little more about Florida criminal law.
So in this short article about a FL criminal case, it sounds like if the jury wanted a clarification, the judge, prosecution and defense should have gotten together and decided on the further explanation, then the judge would have spoken the agreed upon further explanation and everything would have been ok?
If so, would this have this been available to the CA jury?
Be kind - I've never had dealings with the courts (knock wood)
Yes. The jury sends a note to the Court, via the bailiff. The Judge then reads the note with defense and prosecution present. They discuss what should be done and come to an agreement. Then the Judge has the jury brought into the courtroom and proceeds to deal with the question.. All of the above is done on the record. What I have seen is that when the jury has a question about the jury instructions, the Judge will re-read the instruction in question to them.
How interested would you be to hear what they have to say if they had found her "guilty" of killing Caylee? The same amount of interest, more, or less?
As a law student, I'm always interested in how juries come to amke a decision so I'm probably the wrong person to ask that question.
I've never been a juror (probably won't ever be) and their deliberations are always secret. So I've always wondered what effect the various instructions and presentation of facts have on people's decision making.
I have an idea.... Lets all forget about Casey Anthony since the trial is over and the verdict is done. Lets stop giving her more attention than she deserves. We all agree that she will eventually pay for what she has done. Meanwhile, there are probably thousands of other mothers murdering their children right now. Sad thought, but that doesnt make it less true.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention on this thread is that the pattern of behavior that Casey exhibited during June and July of 2008 (lying extensively to everyone in her life) was not new behavior. This is the pattern of behavior she had been engaging in for at least the past couple of years.
So, regardless of what actually happened to Caylee (accidental drowning, smothering with chloroform, etc), Casey didn't change her behavior - she did the same thing she has always done. She made up stories about where she was, who she was with, what she was doing.
No one in her family should be surprised at all that whether it was an accident or a murder, Casey is not going to tell the truth about it. They would be foolish to expect otherwise. It would be very aberrant for her TO have told anyone what actually happened to Caley.
Exactly the reason given by the "alternate" as to why the lying was not an issue for him - it was nothing new.
As I thought of it - another thing that angers me is permitting 31 days to lapse with the child missing when the entire family knew if her mouth was moving Casey was telling a lie. Of course no one could have imagined what happened, but still 31 days was a gift to her that was clearly priceless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
