Casey Anthony Verdict: Not Guilty on All Charges?

On July 5th, Casey Anthony, 25, was found not guilty of first-degree murder, not guilty of aggravated child abuse and not guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child in connection with the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony.  The verdict sent shockwaves through the country as many individuals have paid close attention to this tragic case through media coverage that rivals that of the O.J. Simpson trial.

In hindsight, the common question that many have asked is whether the prosecution’s charge of first-degree murder was the right charge.  In Florida, to prove murder in the first degree, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the unlawful killing of a human being that is perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being or when committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate a series of felonies.  In this case the prosecution tied the felony of aggravated child abuse to the murder in order to charge Casey Anthony with first degree murder.  Therefore, the jury would have had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that either Casey Anthony planned the murder of her daughter or that Casey Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Anthony while engaging in child abuse or an attempt to commit child abuse.

After a 36 day trial and eleven hours of deliberation over two days the jury found Anthony not guilty in the death of her daughter which leaves many questions as to how the jury reached its decision.  Did the prosecution’s case built upon circumstantial evidence lend itself to failure for reasonable doubt?  Should the prosecution have focused their case on manslaughter rather than first degree murder?  These are questions that linger after a verdict that left much of the nation stunned.

 

Illinois: Land of Corruption?

The home state of Abraham Lincoln, one of America’s most admired presidents, has just been given a serious black eye.  Just over five years ago the state sent their former republican governor George Ryan to prison for six and a half years on charges of lying to investigators and accepting cash, gifts, and loans in return for his official actions as governor.  On Monday, June 27th, former democratic governor Rod Blagojevich was found guilty on 17 counts of corruption after being found guilty on one count of lying to the FBI in his previous trial.

Illinois will now have two former governors behind bars, the only question remains is how long will the former Gov. Blagojevich be sentenced to.  If all charges were added up he could be sentenced to over 300 years in prison.  As many of his convictions will be served concurrently along with a look at more recent corruption charges, it would hint that he will likely see a sentence around 10 years in length.

The next question is whether new laws will be passed to clean up the image of Illinois and Chicago that has long been known as “the machine” since the first Mayor Daley ran the city.  Chicago’s new Mayor Rahm Emanual signed three executive orders regarding ethics on the day he was sworn in.  Whether ethics legislation is passed in Springfield will be the next hurdle as using the federal prisons as retirement homes for our former governors is not going to help fix the budget problems.

Immigration and Criminal Convictions: The Potential Collateral Consequences of Pleading Guilty

Padilla v. Kentucky (130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010)), is a case that most people, who are not directly involved in the criminal law business, are probably not familiar with.  But for those of us who are, either as judges, lawyers or otherwise, we would be wise to read this precedent-setting opinion from the Supreme Court.  In a nutshell, Mr. Padilla, who had been a permanent resident for several years, pled to a felony drug conviction, without being properly advised of the potential immigration consequences.  As a result of his guilty plea, he was subject to deportation proceedings.  Ultimately, the US Supreme Court ruled that he was inadequately represented due to his lawyer’s failure to advise him of the potential immigration consequences.

So what are the possible immigration consequences to a criminal conviction?  Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule, but the Immigration and Naturalization Act does provide significant guidance on what crimes will likely subject a person to deportation proceedings.  In broad strokes, there are three categories of crimes that should be carefully considered:  aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude, and crimes involving controlled substances.  To make things even more confusing, there isn’t an exact list of crimes that fall under each category.  The benefit to this ambiguity, from a prosecutorial standpoint, is that a multitude of crimes can be encompassed under these categories.  The downfall, from the defense point of view, is that this makes it very difficult to give clients exact advice on what may or may not open them to deportation.

Some examples of “deportable crimes” include assaultive crimes, crimes that involve elements of theft or dishonesty, crimes that involve lascivious or deviant behavior, and crimes that involve the possession and/or selling of drugs.  Every States’ laws vary on how various crimes are defined.  However, for the purposes of the deportation consequences, it is the nature of the offense that matters.  For example, while a first offense drinking and driving conviction, in and of itself, may not subject someone to being deported, a second or third conviction, might lead to immigration problems.

Obviously, the wisest course of action is to abide by all laws.  But, in the event that a mistake is made, it is important to make sure that that one mistake does not become an even bigger problem.  Please contact Bodwin & Associates for a more specific analysis.