Anthony Defense Seeks More Death Penalty Evidence Defense Team Files Motion To Strike State's Notice

POSTED:
11:34 am EDT May 20, 2010
UPDATED: 11:45 am EDT May 20, 2010


ORLANDO,
Fla. -- The defense team for Casey Anthony went on the offense
Thursday as they demand more information and evidence.Prosecutors
and Anthony's attorneys had a disagreement during court hearings last
week over how much detail the state should provide regarding their
reasons for seeking the death penalty.In a motion filed Thursday
morning, the defense said the state failed to provide any indication of
the evidence it intends to rely on to prove the existence of the
aggravating factors.Prosecutors listed as many as five aggravating factors they
may rely on last week, but the defense said that's not good
enough.The defense also demanded more discovery evidence from Oak
Ridge Laboratory concerning the so-called sniff tests done on the
air in Anthony's car.Based on what the defense called "experimental
research," scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory came to the conclusion
the air did indeed have signs of a decomposition event having taken
place in the car.The defense is asking Judge Belvin Perry to decide
on the issues.The state attorney's office is also preparing to
release as much as 500 more pages of evidence in the case
as early as Friday.

http://www.wesh.com/news/23620126/detail.html

In a motion filed Thursday morning, the defense said the state failed to provide any indication of
the evidence it intends to rely on to prove the existence of the aggravating factors.~~~

I say the state just sends the defense Caylee's birth certificate thus proving the victim was under 12 and the child of the indicted, that's 2 down!

Order Granting Motion for Statement of Particulars Regarding Aggravating Circumstances
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38693448/05112010-Order-Granting-Motion-for-Statement-of-Particulars-Regarding-Aggravating-Circumstances


Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
(Page 5 of 5 here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/probin/sc05-1890_Appendix4.pdf )

(n) Statement of Particulars. The court, on motion, shall order the
prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars when the indictment or
information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of
the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a
defense. The statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the
place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically
requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney, including the names of
persons intended to be defrauded. Reasonable doubts concerning the construction
of this rule shall be resolved in favor of the defendant.



I'm guessing the State will have to provide more information.

Thank you for posting this info - it intrigues me.

I read the Defense's Motion asking for more evidence regarding the aggravating factors, and read the Judge's prior Order telling the State to give the Defense a "LIST" of aggravating factors, and also read the Florida case law, "State vs Steele" which Defense cited in their Motion.

Bottom line ... my conclusion is that the Defense straight up LIED when they wrote in their Motion that Judge Perry ordered the State to "provide a statement of particulars with respect to aggravating circumstances." Defense said Court told the State to disclose to the Defense a "list of aggravating circumstances it intended to rely upon, supported by a bill of particulars. " Judge Perry did NOT state that in his Order.

Watch out for the "extra words" that the Defense slipped into their Motion.... "State of particulars" and "bill of particulars". The Judge NEVER said anything about either in his Order. The Judge only ordered the State to give the Defense a "LIST" of aggravating factors.

When I read the case law, State vs. Steele, I found that there is not even any LAW saying that the State MUST give the Defense a list of the aggravating factors they intend to use ... this is solely at the DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE. The Steele case uses the word "list" of aggravating factors .... not specific, detailed evidence on how to prove the aggravating circumstances. Judge Perry "could" have decided that the State did NOT even have to give a "LIST" of aggravating factors -- but probably decided to rule on the side of caution (no appeal issues). So, there is no law saying the State MUST provide a list of aggravating factors .... and much less that the State must give "evidence" or "particulars" on how they intend to prove the aggravating factors. The key word is "MAY" require ..... it does not say "MUST" require .....a "LIST" of aggravating factors.

The Steele case states that the State already MUST give a lot of Discovery to the Defense, and this makes a requirement for info on aggravating factors unnecessary.

I believe the Defense already has the "Statement of Particulars" information - they have places, dates, and material facts in the crime to make sure that KC knows what crime(s) she is charged with. The Defense did not say anything about this Rule/Law in their Motion. It does not apply to what they are asking for now.

Defense Motion to strike state’s notice of agg. factors here: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23621475/detail.html
excerpts from the Defense Motion:
- On Nov 25, 2009 - Defense filed "Motion for a Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravating Circumstances" - within Court's discretion to grant the motion ....
- State failed to provide any indication of the evidence it intends to rely on to prove the existence of these aggravating factors. [there is NO LAW stating the State must provide this evidence]
- May 11 Order - Court agreed with Defense, granted the motion - to provide a statement of particulars with respect to aggravating circumstances. Court told the State to disclose to the Defense a list of aggravating circumstances it intended to rely upon, supported by a bill of particulars. The State failed to comply with this Order in several respects. [Judge Perry's Order says NOTHING about a "statement of particulars" ... or a "bill of particulars"]
-------------------------------------------

Order Granting Motion for Statement of Particulars Regarding Aggravating Circumstances
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38693448/05112010-Order-Granting-Motion-for-Statement-of-Particulars-Regarding-Aggravating-Circumstances
summary of Judge Perry's ORDER:
- Court requires the State to provide notice of aggravating factors it intends to prove.
- Ordered and Adjudged - "Motion for Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravating Circumstances" is GRANTED. [Judge Perry copied the TITLE
of the Defense Motion, but did NOT make an Order specifically requiring the State to give any kind of "Statement of Particulars"].
- Within 10 days, the State shall provide the defense with a list of all aggravating factors it would intend to prove in the penalty phase proceeding if Defendant is convicted
of first-degree murder. [Judge Perry ordered the State to give the Defense a "LIST" only .... not evidence]
---------------------------------------------
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc04-802.pdf
STATE OF FLORIDA
vs
ALFREDIE STEELE

excerpts from case law, State vs Steele which Defense cited in their Motion:
.... Court may require State to provide pretrial notice of the aggravators it intends to prove in the penalty phase.....
- in Steele case, trial judge required the State to provide advance notice of the aggravating factors on which it intended to rely if the case reached a penalty phase.
A. Pretrial Notice of Aggravating Factors (page 6 of 37 PDF)
- State says Appeal Ct said requiring advance notice of alleged aggravating factors is not required. State says that advance notice is unnecessary in light of the information provided through reciprocal discovery. [the Defense needs to dig through the Discovery to find what they are asking for]
- Appeal Ct says the question we consider - whether a judge may require such notice without violating a clearly established principle of law.
Although it is clear that no statute, rule of procedure, or decision of this Court or the United States Supreme Court compels a trial court to require advance notice of aggravating factors, it is equally clear that none prohibits it, either.
Whether to require the State to provide notice of alleged aggravators is within the trial court's discretion. [the Judge makes the decision in each case]
- (page 9 of 37 PDF) Under Florida's broad discovery rule, the State already must disclose the names of witnesses, statements, test results, and other information about its case. A list of the aggravators the State plans to establish during the penalty phase does not impose a substantial - or substantive - additional burden. [ this Law says a "LIST" of aggravating factors - which is what Ashton gave the Defense - and the Defense already gets a lot of info/evidence in Discovery]
(page 10 of 37) To obtain a death sentence, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one aggravating circumstance,- in the Steele case -....the State did not request pretrial notice of the mitigating factors on which the defendant would rely [ this is why Ashton ASKED for it in the last
Hearing]
(page 20) Florida is now the only state in the country that allows a jury to decide that aggravators exist and to recommend a sentence of death by a mere majority vote.
(page 24) ..... Court may require the State to specify the aggravating circumstances it intends to prove in the penalty phase of a capital case ....

I get hung up on number 1, but you're right, number 2 only specifies a list . . .

It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion for the Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravating Circumstances is GRANTED.

2. Within 10 days, the State shall provide the defense with a list of all aggravating factors it would intend to prove in the penalty phase proceeding if Defendant is convicted of first degree murder.

I'm just thinking Judge Perry will side with the duhfense - death is different.

BUT, since only one aggravating factor is needed for death, just proving the victim was under 12 years old should suffice. They can go prove all of the aggravating factors at trial but for now just provide the evidence to support that the victim is under 12 and the perpetrator was the victim's mother and there are 2 down. Premeditation, heinous, all that can come out at trial and be argued during sentencing without providing the evidence now as only ONE factor is needed to proceed with dp and as far as I'm concerned Caylee's young age is big enough.