Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Prosecutors: Texas law would have offered lots of non-capital murder options for charging Casey Anthony

Texas state Sen. Chris Harris has said he'll file legislation to enact "Caylee's Law," which would make it a felony for a parent not to report their missing child, a proposal being pushed via a petition launched on Change.org, an ostensibly liberal outfit which has latched onto the Casey Anthoney case as a list building tool and been heavily promoting the "Caylee's Law" petition, which has garnered more than a million online signatures (the group's main business is selling access to emails they compile through petitions such as this one).

But the truth is there are plenty of things Anthony could have been charged with already under Texas state law if the crime had occurred here. Instead, in the Anthony case prosecutors thought it more important to grab headlines and "send a message" by charging things they couldn't prove in court instead of settling for convictions for crimes a jury might accept. Let's assume for a moment, along with the rest of the country, that Casey Anthony really is guilty of something. Sans concrete evidence of capital murder, the question is guilty of what?

Over at the Texas District and County Attorneys Association' user forum, Williamson County DA John Bradley asked his fellow prosecutors: "So, let's say you have the Casey Anthony case. And, since you have visionary powers, you already know that a capital murder charge will not get a conviction. What would you charge under Texas law? Be creative." A prosecutor wrting under the handle "LH" replied:
I haven't figured out why they charged capital murder to begin with. That's an awfully high bar to reach in a child homicide case. It's an interesting dynamic that I've seen happen several times over the years in child abuse cases--some jurors just don't want to believe that any parent would INTENTIONALLY kill their own child.

Under Texas law I would have probably charged Injury to a Child and alleged all 4 culpable mental states. Abandoning or Endangering a Child under P.C. 22.041 would also be a consideration. 2nd Degree Tampering With Evidence under P.C. 37.09 might also fit based upon the disposition of the body.
Another prosecutor, frequent TDCAA user forum commenter Martin Peterson, opined that:
One with visionary power should certainly be capable of creativity. Since the Anthony indictment never even identified the manner of death involved, it seems basically a foregone conclusion that proving Casey acted "from a premeditated design to effect the death of Caylee" was likely doomed to failure. To me, proof of intent to kill under Texas law might have been a bit easier, but still no piece of cake, without a more precise theory than "suffocation somewhere, somehow." The second allegation, "did knowingly or willfully cause" serious bodily injury seems more reasonable, but even alleging willfully would likely just cause confusion and you still need a manner of death or good idea about the nature of the conduct. The third theory: "did by culpable negligence fail or omit to provide with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain health," seems difficult to prove also, when you cannot identify what was necessary.

I know it is possible to prove culpability even without proof of exactly how someone died or was killed. But, frankly, I am not sure how you say proof of recklessness is any easier than knowingly when the nature of the conduct remains a mystery. But, I somehow think it would be harder to defend against a reckless allegation. So, my vote would be for manslaughter, or to make it more case specific, reckless injury to a child. Tampering with evidence would be a worthwhile choice if you gave up on proving who or what caused the death.
Judging from these comments from Lone Star prosecutors, Texas law doesn't really need any new crimes created to cover situations like Caylee Anthony's, despite Sen. Harris' good intentions. Prosecutors just need to make smarter charging decisions than their counterparts in Florida and avoid pandering to the media, overreaching to allege crimes they cannot sufficiently prove.

19 comments:

  1. Yeah, just what Texas needs, more felonies. What's the penalty for not reporting your oysters are missing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes Texas prosecutors are very adept at coming up with crimes to charge, God knows we don't need any new ones.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's sad that a child died, but we do not need another knee-jerk reaction law to be enacted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I was a prosectuor in Texas, I'd still go after a capital murder charge. Except i'd use junk science to get the conviction because I know that any claims of questionable science would be ultimately be proposed to the Tx Forensic Science Commission where it would end up in a perpetual quagmire of political hubris and B.S...no thanks to the ex-Chairman.

    Way to set an example, JB. Your 15 minutes are up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The culpable mental state doesn't matter. The jury acquitted on anything that was directly related to causing the harm to Caylee. It's not like the burden of proof is any easier for other crimes.

    The prosecutors had no evidence that wasn't junk science, and the jury saw through that. Period.

    Rage

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great, another grandstanding loser in the Texas Legislature! Why do we keep electing these morons?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why would we NEED this law? we already have laws that make it illegal to not report the death of a person... effin stupid...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Grits, have you been listening in on my recent rants regarding the ever present "...there oughta be a law...' mindset in this State? Keep 'em flying!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have no doubt that the morons in the legislature will come up with a plethora of new felonies, many centering around their ability to grandstand on the Casey Anthony issue. The bottom line is the laws were already in place and the state failed. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now we'll have to produce our children for state inspection? Let me guess, little to no fiscal impact to the taxpayers. A child registry... Hmmm... What could possibly go wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "What's the penalty for not reporting your oysters are missing?" A dead child is an oyster to you? Her death is something to laugh about?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Knee jerk laws creating new felonies are never the answer to solve any type of crime, it is the old throw 'em under the jail mentality that has failed so repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "A dead child is an oyster to you? Her death is something to laugh about?"

    Get off your high horse. He wasn't laughing about a dead child. He was laughing about the ridiculous Texas legislature and their ridiculous oyster felonies. Get a life...geez!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "What's the penalty for not reporting your oysters are missing?"

    A dead child was missing and her mother didn't report it. Some are wanting to make a law against that.

    This a direct comparison of the child with an oyster.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous said...

    "What's the penalty for not reporting your oysters are missing?"

    A dead child was missing and her mother didn't report it. Some are wanting to make a law against that.

    This a direct comparison of the child with an oyster.

    7/12/2011 09:16:00 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You are making a fool of yourself. The writer is not comparing oysters to children simply the fact that Texas is KNOWN for stupid felonies relating to oysters, fish, shrimp and God knows what else. If you cannot see the difference you are overly eaten up with this Florida case and need to simmer down!

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way, the legislature should pass some felonies against people for being stupid! As if my phone doesn't ring enough now!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon: 7:27 and 9:16 (I'm guessing one in the same). Pull your head out of yer ass and maybe you could focus.

    I was making fun of Texas laws, not dead children.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In my opinion, the Florida prosecutors filed a capital charge in the Caasey Anthony for the same reason Houston prosecutors sought the death penalty against Andrea Yates -- to get a death qualified jury which would be more likely to convict than a regular jury.
    The Yates case is a good example. In her second trial, with the death penalty off the table, the jury had no problem in acquitting her for reasons of insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, some laws are abusive, but this is not one of them....

    Children are somewhat vulnerable so the evil state has an interest in whether any are missing or "missing". Sort of like the state interest in whether a kid is or is not in school.

    Don't worry guys:
    - Nobody needs to try to find their missing child.
    - Nobody needs to report anybody else's child as missing
    - Nobody will keep a roster
    -People can have a lawyer with them when they file the report

    Yes, I know, reporting a child missing will subject a parent to police harassment from the Gestapo(questions about when, where and how) the child went missing).

    So what?

    ReplyDelete