The prosecution did not overcharge the case. The charges were fair based on the duration spent carrying out investigations about the murder of Caylee and the extent to which the police had to investigate the case. Additionally, the case was complicated yet the accused was not in custody at the time of investigations. Since the interview that resulted in the prosecution took place in the private house of Casey Anthony and not in a potentially coercive environment, indicates that the interview was non-custodial (Duddles v. State, 845 So.2d 939, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Therefore, the charges were fair to cover up expensive involvement of the police in the case.
The prosecution against Anthony and the charges made on the basis of the four counts of providing the police with false information was fair. This is in direct accordance with the state of Florida law which provides guidelines for the determination of whether the suspect is in custody or not. These factors include: the manner in which the suspect is summoned for questioning, the place, purpose and manner of interrogation, the extent to which the evidence and guilt confronts the suspect and whether the suspect is informed of his/her freedom to leave. According to Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 574 (Fla.1999), all these requirements were satisfied in the case of Anthony thus the prosecution was fair.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to me, the evidence presented by the defense is satisfactory for the judgment of the case. This is because it highlights all the grounds upon which the prosecution is based in regard to the law of the state of Florida which, based on the double jeopardy principles, require two of her four misdemeanor convictions to be set aside. Therefore, Anthony violated section 837.055, Florida Statutes (2008), rendering her guilty and worth the prosecution.
References
Duddles v. State, 845 So.2d 939, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
Findlaw, (2013). Casey Marie Anthony, Appellant, V. State Of Florida, Appellee, No. 5D11–2357. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1621490.html
Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 574 (Fla.1999
