Imperfect Justice_ Prosecuting Casey Anthony - Jeff Ashton [68]
While we were battling Baez on just about every little thing, there was another issue that we had to address internally at the prosecutor’s office: whether to seek the death penalty against Casey. Every defendant charged with first degree murder technically faces the possibility of the death penalty, though few actually meet the eligibility requirements in the statute. These requirements are based upon factors about the crime, the victim, and the offender’s prior record. Although the statute does not mandate it, most state attorneys try to inform the court as early as possible if their case obviously does not meet any of these criteria. In some cases the determination is clear-cut because none of the criteria is met. In others, though some of the criteria may be met, we know from experience and research that the death penalty will not fly, either because juries never give it under those circumstances or because the courts have decided in similar cases that the facts aren’t sufficiently egregious.
We like to have as much information as possible in making such an important decision, so we invited Casey’s defense team to provide us with any information they would like us to consider. After some delay they provided us with a document that was largely useless to us since it provided no new information, just a lot of argument. From reading it, we sensed that it was prepared more for the media than for us. We presented the information we had to the state attorney, and from the outset, Linda, Frank, and I knew how it would go. Since we didn’t know how Caylee died, we could not in good faith assert that we could meet any of the criteria related to the crime itself. That left us with only a single criterion met by the case: the fact that Caylee was a child in the care of a caregiver. Strong as that piece was, alone it was unlikely to convince a jury or appellate court that death was justified. On December 3, the state attorney made the decision not to seek the death penalty against Casey.
Meanwhile, Baez continued to file motions, including a request to use his laptop in jail, another to inspect the evidence, and another to review the credentials of the cadaver dogs. Some of the motions were fairly standard, such as inspection of evidence, while others seemed to demonstrate an expectation that Casey should be treated differently than other inmates. Special privileges were requested, and generally, unless there was some security concern at the jail, they were granted. At one point the defense requested that she not be required to appear in court when the motions were heard. We objected, and her presence was required. Some people wondered why we objected. Why should we care if she did not want to hear her own attorney’s motions? Baez accused us of just wanting to put her on display. In truth, it was not that simple.
While part of me felt that if I had to sit and listen to him blather on, then she should too, the actual reason was more subtle. We in the prosecution are highly conscious of the accusations that defendants typically make against their attorneys after they are convicted. One way of responding to those allegations is to show that the defendant knew what the lawyer was doing and went along with it. Having her present in the courtroom throughout the trial helps with that argument. As the motions poured in, there was one thing consistent in them all. Every motion attacked somebody. Usually it was the police, but occasionally it was our office. Reading Baez’s motions left you with the distinct