Skip to content

May 15, 2011


Day 6 of jury selection – the 5 aggravating factors

by Andrea O'Connell

As we know, the requisite number of jurors, in the State of Florida v. Casey Anthony, have not been met.  Therefore, jury selection will resume on Monday, May 16th, continuing, and hopefully concluding, on Tuesday.

Reportedly, Judge Perry would like to give the jurors a one-day break to get settled in (Wednesday), and begin opening statements on Thursday, May 19th.

As of now, 12 potential jurors have made it through phase two of vior dire – the count is 6 men, 6 woman.  Judge Perry recently advised the Attorney’s that his “magic number” of jurors is 15, though he’d like to have 20, he’ll settle with 15.

The Death Penalty and its Aggravating Factors in the State v. Anthony

It was one year ago, that the State of Florida filed their motion listing the five (5) out of a possible 15 aggravating factors that correspond with the murder of Caylee Marie Anthony.

We have heard the mitigating factors that Attorney Ann Finnel plans to use as weight for the jurors to use.  The jurors will have to be very moved and affected by the mitigating factors – giving them more weight than the aggravaters.

That’s what scares me.

The 5 aggravating factors charged by the people of the State of Florida are from Florida Statute 921.141(5), and specifically letters: D, H I, L, and M.  I highlighted the aspects of each of the 5 factors that align with the charges against Casey Anthony.

D) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

H) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

I) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

L) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

M) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

It should be no surprise that I am vehemently against the death penalty; it is draconian murder – just “an eye for an eye” which is wrong in every sense.

Third world countries believe in an eye for an eye and hardly blink to execute a human being.

But, we live in the U.S.A.  We know the death penalty is not a deterrent.  Crime rates continue to rise despite the death penalty.

Honestly, I feel that the State v. Casey Anthony trial could easily result in a sentence of death. 

Ann Finnel has an enormous burden. 

More about this at another time…..

42 Comments Post a comment
  1. May 15 2011

    Actually, an eye for an eye means perfect justice. Its a Jewish idiom. It would not be justice if someone paid less than a just price for their offense or if they paid more than a just price for their offense. That’s what an eye for an eye means-not too heavy a sentence and not too light of a sentence is to be paid in restitution.

    Let me explain a bit using the idiom’s analogy: If a man pokes out the eye of another man with malicious intent then he should not pay with both of his eyes making him blind and unable to work (think of ancient times here when this idiom came to be-one didn’t have a source of income except for begging if he was blind). However, the victim could show mercy and ask for a monetary restitution instead that would equal what he thinks it costs him in lost revenue and medical bills. He may even suck up the whole payment upon himself for the crime if he desires to forgive the offense. Here is where the victim is the one to show the mercy and no one else. For Caylee, the jury will decide concerning the sentence unless HHJP overrides it. An eye for an eye means Casey pays with her life whether it be LWOP or death by lethal injection. A life for a life taken. That’s how serious the value of a human life is-no one should take it away-it is not theirs to do so with. Life is that sacred.

    I will say that when Ms. Finell had asked if jurists could mete out a sentence with mercy I am reminded that justice must always be meted out with mercy. That comes in many forms-a compassionate jury can give LWOP instead of death, or there is also the appeals process when the sentence is death.

    • May 15 2011

      Sherry, you have a wonderful way of explaining things…. 🙂 thank you…

      One of the problems I have with “an eye for an eye” is that it defies the logic of: “two wrongs don’t make it right.” That’s something I take to the bank. 🙂

      The DP and “eye for an eye” are not sane justice, in my opinion. Why should two people be maimed or killed? Plus, it does nothing to deter criminal behavior because the crime is done, the punishment is too late, intervention needed to occur in advance.

      People who lack opportunities, who have not developed a moral compass; or haven’t got the means, or the ability, or the motivation to complete high school, are the ones who the system and society has forgotten.

      The middle class is disappearing and we’re becoming a nation of very poor and very rich – and that’s a recipe for disaster… Our prisons are a mess, our streets are filled with the homeless (we have homeless students at universities). Poverty breeds criminal behavior. When a mother or father wants to provide food, clothing, and a home for their children, but have fallen on hard times, how forgiving are we to their plight? If a father steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, it harms the baker’s business, sure, but to cut off the hand or a finger of the father is barbaric….
      Oh dear…. it’s late and I have to work in the ole a.m.!
      Take notes, if you can, about tomorrow…. I’ll miss the whole darn thing. 😦

      • May 16 2011

        The adage, “Two wrongs…” doesn’t fit because the meter of justice is not doing wrong. Its like saying it would be wrong to remove Casey Anthony from society for having taken Caylee out of society through murdering her.

        Funny, though, those who think abortion is OK can’t see how “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Casey committed a wrong because she was wronged by her mother and that ended her daughter’s life.

        I’m not seeing where you are coming from with the rest of your argument-I’m seeing your points as not quite fitting the eye for an eye justice system but rather as a social ills argument that all of us should be concerned with if we have a heart. Our nation has a fine welfare system so that no child should know hunger. That is, if the guvment would get their mitts off that appointed monies! grrrr Plus, there are plenty of programs to help children to do well in school. IMO, its the parents’ lack of involvement in their childrens’ lives that hurts these children the most.

        One more note~
        You say:
        “When a mother or father wants to provide food, clothing, and a home for their children, but have fallen on hard times, how forgiving are we to their plight? If a father steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, it harms the baker’s business, sure, but to cut off the hand or a finger of the father is barbaric….”

        THAT is NOT an eye for an eye justice! You proved my point (please forgive me for sounding like mfm 😯 )! This is injustice by exacting a price that is more than should be paid and it lacks mercy. It is the baker who should decide whether he forgives or not but, to prevent that baker from chopping off the father’s hand, the eye for an eye justice comes into play-meaning that the baker cannot ask the punishment to be more than the price of that loaf of bread to be paid. An eye for an eye justice puts boundaries on a man’s wrath when offended.

      • May 16 2011

        😳 My ‘pologies, for I’m going to be very busy tomorrow-I’ll be relying on a notetaker, too. Oh, CptKDeeee! :mrgreen:

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        You’re funny, Sherry!

        Sorry, that today hasn’t been a day where I’ve been the most involved – I apologize, but I’ve been extremely busy with some personal and work related paper work.

        My week should return to normal in the next day or so….
        So… I’ll be sure then, to keep things up to the ‘here and now’.

    • Weezie
      May 16 2011

      Sherry; here I am waving!!! Death imposed sentences require a jury of 12 to deliberate not only the facts of the case, but in fact their own personal and moral ideas about the DP. I’m not sure how one can do this without future damage to their own personal lives. Of course there are people who have no personal guilt about casting the STONE. I can think of cases where there would be DEATH as the only decision for the heinous crime. I have always thought that circumstantial cases no matter the evidence, if you can’t prove the manner of death, then you can’t actually prove the heinousous of the crime. I believe that the Defence do have this opportunity to show doubt. I guess we will finally see how it will unfold. The Prosecution will try to show how the dumping of the body was shrouded in laundry bags, and green gabage bags, the head wrapped in duct tape, shows premeditated, thoughtful discarding of a murdered baby. They still have to prove it was CASEY, not anyone else, in order to come to a DP decision. She will certainly have a guilty decision, but I’m not sure how far that will go. I would also like to think that I will be listening along with the jury to decide.

  2. Crystal
    May 15 2011

    I, too, am against the death penalty. I feel that it is so barbaric and it’s been ruled out in the majority of states for many reasons. I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, for sure. The only times I feel the DP is suitable is in a situation where this is something like Charles Manson situation or a serial killer or terrorist on a mission to kill.

    Anyhow, I know I’m not completely 100% up to date with all evidence as I have a lot to catch up on. However, I was wondering a few things:

    1. Has Casey’s defense team tried to get her off on manslaughter? What proof does the state have that this is pre-meditated?

    2. Where is the father of Caylee? I’ve heard rumors that George is the father but then I hear her brother and George have been ruled out.

    I have to work this week, and it just figured i’m 8-5 on Thursday, the day this is supposed to all start. AH! I’ve been struggling to find a site that gives good detail updates of the day’s case. Any suggestions? I’ve looked at the ones you told me on facebook, but there is SO much going on on the pages that I can’t seem to sift through to find what I’m looking for.

    Anyhow, this will be interesting, but I’m definitely hoping the jury has enough mercy not to sentence her to the DP.

    • May 15 2011

      Hi Crystal!
      No, Casey would not take any kind of plea (she was offered one on Monday, the day jury selection began). To the bewilderment of everyone, she has maintained her innocence from day one – blaming “Zanny the Nanny” for kidnapping Caylee. Of course, that story was a complete fabrication, and ludicrous to boot, so now the defense team has to come up with some kind of reasonable doubt – all signs point to the defense using the Anthony family, particularly George, as a possible patsy (murderer). It won’t work, of course.

      Caylee’s father is a mystery. There are a couple of stories, the most oft told is that he was named “Eric” and was killed in a car accident. Then there’s the story of a one-night stand at an amusement park…. No one really knows the identity.

      A good source of info is the WFTV web page because they post the video of the day’s events. There’s a blog on my blogroll, “Humble Opinion” that I really like because she posts updates on the case every day, sometimes two times a day, and she does a weekly roundup, too.

      Marinade Dave – on my blog roll – does a lot of in-depth stories on the case; and Mainstreamfair has a news section that offers links to the news of the day regarding the case. The Hinky Meter goes into a lot of details about the forensic science – Val Hall, the owner of the site, is or was a scientist of some kind and provides excellent information.

      There are other good ones on my list, too…. If you click the tag “Casey Anthony” you’ll get a list of the most recent posts about the case.

      I am mad that I’ll miss these proceedings, too… I do hate that work is getting in the way of following this case! 🙂

  3. May 16 2011

    Crystal, if you believe the death penalty in your words is suitable ONLY when it is like Charles Manson, serial killers, or terrorists with a mission to kill then you believe in the death penalty. Here is why i say this. Charles Mansion killed more than one person, serial killer’s kill more than one person, terrorists kill more than one person. Casey Anthony killed only ONE person but it makes her no better or less evil a person than the Charles Manson’s, serial killer’s and terrorists that kill many nor no less suitable for the death penalty. Casey Anthony killed her very own defenseless little toddler baby girl that was helpless and innocent and could not even fight back. If that doesn’t make her as worthy of the death penalty as it would Charles Manson, serial killer’s, and terrorists then i don’t know what would. She intentionally selfishly took her baby Caylee’s life, duct taped her mouth and nose, hauled her around in her car trunk doubled bagged in trash bags until she finally decided where to throw her, and that location was 15 houses down the street in a over grown up empty lot from her own parents house where she and Caylee lived and where she (Casey) used to hang out with friends when she was in school and where she buried her pets. She partied it up at fusion lounge, went to her boyfriends house and was playing susie homemaker with him renting movies and playing house and could have cared less about Caylee left rotting in those woods with animals chewing on her. Caylee was nothing more than a problem for Casey and she was now rid of her and happy about it. She has lied to her parents, brother, Law enforcement, FBI, sent LE on wild goose chases and when asked by Law enforcement , how is sending us to false addresses and lieing to us going to help us find your daughter, Casey answers it’s not. That answer is the only true statement in three years i have heard her make and i have followed this case relentlessly, read everything on it since the beginning when it happened in 2008. Caylee was a victim of a horrific death at the hands of the one person that was suppose to love and take care of her, her very own Mother.

  4. May 16 2011

    Hi Sherry, great post. well done.

    • May 16 2011

      Great post by you, too, knight owl! 😉

      I believe the DP should be meted out for the same reasons as Crystal does but, by golly! I think you have tugged on a heart string or two of mine with your comment!

      In any case, Casey should never, ever be free to live her life since she denied that opportunity to Caylee. 😦

  5. May 16 2011

    Hi Andrea. Great post as always. Love to see that cute doggie avatar.

  6. May 16 2011

    Crystal, there is just so much more i could tell you about Casey and this case and all i have learned but it would take a book to cover it.

  7. May 16 2011

    Sherry, thanks. I can see where Crystal and you are coming from until it comes to helpless children, and to me anyone that purposely kills a child deserves the same punishment . Kids can’t fight back which makes it cowardly on top of a munstrous act of the adult that would target a kid and little babies/toddler’s. I pray Casey rules the day she took Caylee’s life from her. Caylee would be six years old now. Just sickening~~ What ever Casey ends up with she got a trial which Caylee did not.

    • May 16 2011

      Okay, you just convinced me! If victims are helpless and dependant on others to care for them then, yes, the DP fits if it was a heinous, intentional act. You have a big heart~

  8. May 16 2011

    From all my reading on the Manson case. He never killed anyone. He had his followers to do his dirty deed. It’s been a while but that is what I recall. Everyone is stuck in the “an eye for and eye” but the don’t read past that.

    Matthew”39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

    41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

    42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

    If EVERYONE would abide by the scriptures that I listed. This world would be a wonderful place. Like, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. Because it isn’t that way. KARMA, whatsoever you reap you shall sew. This is Casey’s Karma.

    I could write on this all day long and still not complete it. But Kings were set up in the Old T. Because some were complaining God wasn’t enough for them. They wanted rulers to govern over them. But you get my drift. Now we have Judges, attorney, courts etc. haha.

    • May 16 2011

      Shyloh sez:
      “If EVERYONE would abide by the scriptures that I listed. This world would be a wonderful place. Like, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. ”


      • May 16 2011

        Me tooo! I’m training today (on break now) and missing all the news 😦

        Tlk to u all later!

        Sent from my iPhone

  9. May 16 2011

    Shyloh, that is for personal offenses. We should never keep justice due from someone using these scripture verses. Again, these verses would be for the person offended to decide upon as to how he will react. Its not a court of law admonition (in fact, it keeps one from going to the court of law for resolve-which is a good thing). An eye for an eye is the ideal rule for a court of law.

    Not that you are meaning this but I have seen this scripture misused to mean we should not go to war with those who attack us or drag us by a hook in the jaw to war. This admonition is not a national one but for individuals to heed. A person and a nation should always come to the defense of those oppressed by an evil govornment. We must not force others to turn the other cheek when they come to us as a nation for help.

  10. CptKD
    May 16 2011

    I wanted to apologize for a comment that I left the other day regarding the Alternates in the Jury panel.
    I am trying to locate where it was that I had read the JP would NOT be disclosing WHO the ALTERNATES were, within the Jury, until the end of trial, and prior to deliberations.
    Until I can find this article that I referenced, I wanted to post here, as I did over at Kim’s, the RULES of PROCEDURE in a Florida Criminal Case, with regards to the empanelling of a Jury.

    I hope this helps clear up any questions regarding the Alternates in a Jury panel.

    From Florida Government Web-site:

    Click to access 8gc085.PDF

    Clipped from Criminal Procedure:
    § 85.45. Alternate Jurors

    Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties. Alternate jurors shall be
    drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be
    subject to the same examination and challenges; shall take the same oath
    and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities and privileges as the
    regular jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall
    be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict.

    Again, I apologize if I caused any one, any kind of confusion, and should I locate the article that referenced that which I posted the other day, I will be sure to post it for your information.

    Thanks all!

  11. CptKD
    May 16 2011

    To clear up the Alternates information:

    (From Palm Beach Post with thanks)

    Another revelation in the expense breakdown is the fact that 20 jurors are expected to be seated — instead of the more common 14, which includes 12 jurors and two alternates. In the Anthony case, there likely will be eight alternates, according to court-administration spokeswoman Karen Levey. Those folks WON’T KNOW’who the alternates are until the trial ends.

    (From In Session with thanks)

    His magic number is 15 to get the first 12 sworn in. Allowing three strikes.
    There will be 20 total jury members when this is over. 12 jury members and 8 alternates.
    They will not know who is who until deliberations begin.

    But if they don’t know who’s on and who’s an alternate how would they pick?
    *They will know at the end of the trial before deliberations. That is when they pick a foreperson…not at the begining of the trial. IMO

    (From Hinky Meter with thanks)

    2) The jurors – Remember, all of the jurors will sit for trial and will not know who the alternates are until deliberation. I love this. It keeps them all on task. Not sure how JP will do this, random draw or what, but it’s awesome.

    (From Watching the Trial… with thanks)

    “A complete jury panel consists of 12 voting jurors and another 8 alternates. Jurors won’t know if they are an alternate or not until the first day of deliberation.”

    I hope this clears up any misunderstandings as to my previous post regarding the Alternates NOT KNOWING who they are until trial time…
    I still haven’t found the original website that posted this information, but as you can see, there are several other places/people with the same information.

  12. CptKD
    May 16 2011

    My last post went into moderation…

    I don’t know why, or what I wrote to cause that,
    but the same thing just occurred over at Kim’s

    Please release me….

    • May 16 2011

      Hey my dear…. I saved you from moderation – I saw it on my phone…. it was because of the links, the system thought your post was spam. 😦
      I am so sorry….
      LOL, I got home from work and fell asleep on the couch – just woke up and have NO idea what went on today……I have lots of catching up to do! grrrrr!

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        Not a problem – I apologize for adding so many links in one post..

        Sherry mentioned that it might be due to the amount of links included in my response, and so I’ll keep that in mind for any future comments…

        And yes, it was a busy day so there is lots to catch up on!

      • May 16 2011

        Oh my, please don’t apoligize, CptKD! You may post anything you wish, no matter what. The backend of WordPress thought the post was Spam because the Spammers use links in their posts.
        I was looking for a link to the last video of the day, but WFTV doesn’t have it. So, I missed the closing remarks from the day. Darn!

  13. CptKD
    May 16 2011

    Ooops – sorry about that!
    I see it’s been released…

    Can you please tell me what it was that put me there to begin with?
    Just so I know for any of my future replies/comments… Thx, Andrea!

    • May 16 2011

      Too many links! 😆

      Andrea will have to let you know how many is allowed. Thanks for the info!

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        See below, Sherry!

        If Richard Horsby says the same thing, then I believe I was right in my statement afterall…

        Sorry for all the links above, but each one states pretty much the same thing.

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        Thanks Sherry!
        I re-read everything to see if there were BAD words or nasty statements, but I didn’t see anything within the responses…

        Makes sense, if in fact there is a number of links allowed in one reply/comment, that I went into moderation… Thanks for pointing that out!

      • May 16 2011

        Yup! Prevents those spambots with a gazillion links.

  14. CptKD
    May 16 2011

    From Richard Hornsby:
    With thanks!

    The jurors themselves do not know if they are an alternate or primary juror during the trial. It is only once the closing arguments and jury instructions are read that the jurors find out their place in the pecking order.

    • May 16 2011

      Hahaha! Quick! Rush this post to Weezie! Poor thing is confused!

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        I posted it over at Kim’s as well,
        so hopefully she’ll check in and see
        the information regarding the

    • May 16 2011

      Yay! That’s what I thought, too. So glad you checked!

      • CptKD
        May 16 2011

        Me too –

        It’s been bugging me since I was questioned on my original post regarding this mattter…

        Glad I could find the CORRECT answers for everyone!

        At least that settles that for us…

  15. Whistlersmother
    May 16 2011

    Sherry You rock! great posts on explaining it all. I think that the death penalty is appropriate in some situations. This MAY be one, I do not know enough of the crime yet to make that decision. If this was an accident, then maybe not but if it is premeditated and carried out by the person of trust to the child I could lead her to the chamber.

    • May 16 2011

      TY! 😉

    • May 16 2011

      Sherry does ROCK! 🙂 🙂

      I understand how this case calls for the death penalty…. I really do…. I respect the opinion of those who feel she deserves the death penalty…

  16. LongbranchLady
    May 16 2011

    Sherry you truly are a scholar-loved your posts.

    I agree with Whistlersmother about the death penalty but I don’t see the death penalty as a deterrent. I know and accept that it isn’t. I’ve always considered the DP as a fitting punishment for some pretty heinous crimes and if Casey really did premeditate the horrible murder of her own daughter, then I feel she deserves the harshest punishment-death. The thing is I would have to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that she was guilty ala Scott Peterson and I have to hear ALL the evidence before I can say she should get the DP. Trial can’t come soon enough for me.

    • May 17 2011

      Aw, LongbranchLady, you make me blush! 😳 TY!

      I agree with you and Whistlersmother about the DP. I really can’t see casey getting the DP and if she does, I’m more apt to put the blame on her defense team for all their shenannigans.

  17. Weezie
    May 17 2011

    There’s a so much left to be heard, that I can’t make a prediction, just that if they want to avoid the DP, they will HAVE TO PUT CASEY on the stand.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: