Casey Anthony Trail

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, how is what you're describing any different from double jeopardy?

If what you are saying were true, there would be no need (or even any point) to trying her for murder and manslaughter at the same time.  You would try her for murder, then if that failed, you would immediately re-arrest her and try her for manslaughter, then if that failed, you would re-arrest her again for child endangerment, and so on.

[Phishfan]

I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly Spider. My point that I don't think trying her for improper disposal wouldn't fall under double jeopardy? The crimes in your question would all be related under the first charge. Improper disposal of a body is unrelated to a murder charge. You can improperly dispose of a dead body when a person dies from natural causes, accident, etc. I'm afraid I just don't understand your question as written.

[Brian Fein]

How can you be convicted of improperly disposing of the body, if the courts already ruled that she's not the killer?

(even though she probably is)

Or course, even if they could charge her with that, she's out of it easily.  "I didn't kill her, so how could I have disposed of the body?"

[Phishfan]

I already said how. You can improperly dispose of a body even if you didn't murder them. People die everyday from accidents, natural causes, etc. and you still have a body to deal with at that point. The defense's position was that Caylee died in an accidental drowning. Something had to be done with the body.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't think the McVeigh example really fits. I'm not trained in this area so this is from my own study and interpretation. He could have been tried differently for each victim whether found guilty or not guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense and a conspiracy to commit the offense are not the same for double jeopardy.

If you are referring to the case I am thinking of, they ruled they are not the same for double jeopardy to be charged as separate counts, not separate trials.  For example you CAN NOT be found guilty of both attempted XXX and XXX for the exact same incident because it violates double jeopardy, but you can be for XXX and conspiracy of XXX.  But you still need to be tried on both counts in the same trial. 

What is considered double jeopardy for the purposes of different counts and for different trials is an entirely different standard. 

An example I would use of this is let's say McVeigh had killed a security guard by gunshot before he planted the bomb. It was all part of the same act, but had he been acquitted of the bombing, separate evidence could convict him of the security guard killing.

Here my recollection is a bit sketchy but I think you are incorrect.  But on the other hand if two days earlier he shot some in a robbery to steal materials to use in making the bomb, that absolutely could be a different trial. 

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly Spider. My point that I don't think trying her for improper disposal wouldn't fall under double jeopardy? The crimes in your question would all be related under the first charge. Improper disposal of a body is unrelated to a murder charge.

Right, but it's all tied to the same event (death of Caylee).  Therefore, if you intend to charge Casey with that, you need to do so at the murder trial.

Essentially, you are creating a double jeopardy loophole.

[masterfins]

^^^ Additionally, the accused has a right to a fair and speedy trial.  Since the prosecution said all along that she dumped the body there, the defense can argue that Anthony was not provided a speedy trial since they've had three years to charge her and didn't.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ Additionally, the accused has a right to a fair and speedy trial.  Since the prosecution said all along that she dumped the body there, the defense can argue that Anthony was not provided a speedy trial since they've had three years to charge her and didn't.

The right to speedy trial doesn't really apply.  The clock starts with being charged with the crime not committing a crime.  Double J is what will prevent this. 

And the supremes have pretty much gutted speedy trial requirement with so many exceptions that it rarely ever comes into play. 

[bsmooth]

Right, but it's all tied to the same event (death of Caylee).  Therefore, if you intend to charge Casey with that, you need to do so at the murder trial.

Essentially, you are creating a double jeopardy loophole.

Really? How many times have you seen someone charged with murder and illegal disposal of the body was a lesser included charge?
Her defense never argued she did not dump the body, they argued it was an accident. She was charged with killing her child and not with a seperate crime of illegal disposal.
She could be charged with it and would have a hard time denying she did not dump the body of her child in a swamp are did not report it.
Since it is a seperate crime from the one she was charged with, it should not be double jeopardy as you can be charged with murder wether you try and dispose of the body or leave it lying where you killed them, it makes no difference to the actual charge of murder.

[Spider-Dan]

bsmooth, I am not saying that she could not have been charged with that.  I am saying that the time for that has passed.  If they intended to charge her with it, they should have done so concurrent with the murder charges.

What you are proposing would completely gut the concept of prohibiting double jeopardy.  At the conclusion of any acquittal (or conviction!), the prosecution could just serve up more charges, keeping the defendant in a perpetual state of pre-trial imprisonment.

[bsmooth]

bsmooth, I am not saying that she could not have been charged with that.  I am saying that the time for that has passed.  If they intended to charge her with it, they should have done so concurrent with the murder charges.

What you are proposing would completely gut the concept of prohibiting double jeopardy.  At the conclusion of any acquittal (or conviction!), the prosecution could just serve up more charges, keeping the defendant in a perpetual state of pre-trial imprisonment.

How would it gut double jeopardy? She is not being charged with the crime of murder in any of its forms period. If she were to be charged with the illegal disposing of a body, that is a seperate crime from murder as it has been pointed out you can illegally dump a body without having been responisble for the person dying.
You are broadly applying double jeopardy to cover charges that are seperate from the main charge. You are equating disposal of a body to being the same level of crime as murder.

[Dave Gray]

^ Good point.

I think this also adds to the not guilty verdict.

While motive and prior signs of abuse are not required for a guilty verdict, without other hard evidence, it's really hard to convict if you don't have these.  (A key difference in the Scott Peterson trial.)

The mother and daughter seemed to get along well, and there was nobody that would stand up and say otherwise.  She sounded like a loving mother (aside from the whole killing her kid thing.)  It is a big leap to go from no sign of abuse to murder, without hard evidence.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

How would it gut double jeopardy? She is not being charged with the crime of murder in any of its forms period. If she were to be charged with the illegal disposing of a body, that is a seperate crime from murder as it has been pointed out you can illegally dump a body without having been responisble for the person dying.
You are broadly applying double jeopardy to cover charges that are seperate from the main charge. You are equating disposal of a body to being the same level of crime as murder.

Multiple trials for a single criminal act. 

[Phishfan]

I don't know how you go from one extreme to another. 

Just a guess on my part.

By enjoying one more than the other eventually. Parties are almost always fun. The responsibility of needing to drag yourself out of bed to care for someone can eventually lead to resentment of needing to do this and eventually to the person theirself.

[Spider-Dan]

How would it gut double jeopardy? She is not being charged with the crime of murder in any of its forms period. If she were to be charged with the illegal disposing of a body, that is a seperate crime from murder as it has been pointed out you can illegally dump a body without having been responisble for the person dying.
You are broadly applying double jeopardy to cover charges that are seperate from the main charge. You are equating disposal of a body to being the same level of crime as murder.

You know what else is a separate charge from murder?  Lying to law enforcement.  And yet she was tried for that at the same time as the murder, and convicted on those charges.