This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. (June 2011)

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted, and in some countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act — though this practice is becoming less common.^[1] In most countries, there is no statute of limitations for murder (no time limit for prosecuting someone for murder). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.^[2]

Legal analysis of murder[link]

William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.^[3]

The elements of common law murder are:

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human
4. by another human
5. with malice aforethought.^[4]

The Unlawful—This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war. ^[5]

Killing—At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest^[4]—the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.^[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.^[4]

of a human—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.^[4]

by another human—at early common law suicide was considered murder.^[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought—originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.

Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally, second degree murder is common law murder, and first degree is an aggravated form. The aggravating factors of first degree murder are a specific intent to kill, premeditation, and deliberation. In addition, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as first degree murder.^[6]

Origins[link]

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (July 2010)

The robbers killed passer, 15th century

The earliest known murder is the death of Ötzi the Iceman, who died around the year 3255 BCE and whose body is well-preserved by ice. Ötzi died from blood loss after being hit by an arrow. However, the exact circumstances of his death are not known.

In the past, certain types of homicide were lawful and justified. Georg Oesterdiekhoff wrote that:

Evans-Pritchard says about the Nuer from Sudan: "Homicide is not forbidden, and Nuer do not think it wrong to kill a man in fair fight. On the contrary, a man who slays another in combat is admired for his courage and skill." (Evans-Pritchard 1956: 195) This statement is true for most African tribes, for pre-modern Europeans, for Black Australians, and for Native Americans, according to ethnographic reports from all over the world. ... Homicides rise to incredible numbers among headhunter cultures such as the Papua. When a boy is born, the father has to kill a man. He needs a name for his child and can receive it only by a man, he himself has murdered. When a man wants to marry, he must kill a man. When a man dies, his family again has to kill a man.^[7]

One of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." The payment of weregild was an important legal mechanism in early Germanic society. If someone was killed, the guilty person would have to pay weregild to the victim's family. The other common form of legal reparation at this time was blood revenge.

In Judeo-Christian traditions, the prohibition against murder is one of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses in (Exodus: 20v13) and (Deuteronomy 5v17) (See Murder in the Bible). The Vulgate and subsequent early English translations of the Bible used the term secretly killeth his neighbour or smiteth his neighbour secretly rather than murder for the Latin clam percusserit proximum.^[8][9]

Later editions such as Young's Literal Translation and the World English Bible have translated the Latin occides simply as murder^[10][11] rather than the alternatives of kill, assassinate, fall upon or slay. Christian churches have some doctrinal differences about what forms of homicide are prohibited biblically, though all agree that murder is prohibited.^{[citation needed]}

In Islam according to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault. "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."^{[Quran 5:32]} "And those who cry not unto any other god along with Allah, nor take the life which Allah hath forbidden save in (course of) justice, nor commit adultery - and whoso doeth this shall pay the penalty."^{[Quran 25:68]}

The term 'Assassin' derives from Hashshashin,^[12] a militant Ismaili Shi-ite sect, active from the eighth to the fourteenth centuries. This mystic secret society killed members of the Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuq and Crusader elite for political and religious reasons.^[13] The Thuggee cult that plagued India was devoted to Kali, the goddess of death and destruction.^[14][15] According to some estimates the Thuggees murdered 1 million people between 1740 and 1840.^[16] The Aztecs believed that without regular offerings of blood the sun god Huitzilopochtli would withdraw his support for them and destroy the world as they knew it.^[17] According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the 1487 re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan.^[18][19]

Legal definition[link]

As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions and is usually codified in some form of legislation.

At common law[link]

According to Blackstone, English common law identified murder as a public wrong.^[20] At common law, murder is considered to be malum in se, that is an act which is evil within itself. An act such as murder is wrong/evil by its very nature. And it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or definition in the law to consider murder a crime.^[21]

Some jurisdictions still take a common law view of murder. In such jurisdictions, precedent case law or previous decisions of the courts of law defines what is considered murder. However, it tends to be rare and the majority of jurisdictions have some statutory prohibition against murder.

Exclusions[link]

• Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
• Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses.
• Suicide is not considered murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.
• Capital punishment ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime.
• Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes. (see the Laws of war article)
• The administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is seen in many jurisdictions as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr John Bodkin Adams).^[22]
• In some cases, killing a person who is attempting to kill another is classified as self-defense and thus, not murder.

Self-defense[link]

Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defense it is called a "justifiable homicide".^[23] A killing simply to prevent the theft of one's property may not be a justifiable homicide, depending on the laws of a place.

Victim[link]

All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is a human being who was still alive at the time of being murdered. In other words, under the law, one cannot murder a cadaver, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism^{[clarification needed]}.

California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction.^[24] This holding has two implications. The first is a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime.^[24] The second, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.^[24]

Mitigating circumstances[link]

Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

Insanity[link]

Mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. Usually, sociopathy and other personality disorders are not legally considered insanity, because of the belief they are the result of free will in many societies. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not guilty verdict.^[25] This defense has two elements:

1. That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect.
2. That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what he or she was doing was wrong.

Under New York law, for example:

§ 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong.

Under the French Penal Code:

Article 122-1

• A person is not criminally liable who, when the act was committed, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which destroyed his discernment or his ability to control his actions.
• A person who, at the time he acted, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which reduced his discernment or impeded his ability to control his actions, remains punishable; however, the court shall take this into account when it decides the penalty and determines its regime.

Those who successfully argue a defense based on a mental disorder are usually referred to mandatory clinical treatment until they are certified safe to be released back into the community, rather than prison.^[26]

Post-partum depression[link]

Some countries, such as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, allow postpartum depression (also known as post-natal depression) as a defense against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less than two years old (this may be the specific offense of infanticide rather than murder and include the effects of lactation and other aspects of post-natal care).^{[citation needed]}

Unintentional[link]

For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful, the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter^[27] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.^[28]

Diminished capacity[link]

In those jurisdictions using the Uniform Penal Code, such as California, diminished capacity may be a defense. For example, Dan White used this defense^[29] to obtain a manslaughter conviction, instead of murder, in the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Aggravating circumstances[link]

In Florida, Ryan Holle was convicted of first-degree murder for lending his car to a friend.^[30]

Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly. Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:

• Premeditation
• Poisoning
• Murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime^[31]
• Murder of a pregnant woman^[32]
• Committed for pay or other reward^[33]
• Exceptional brutality or cruelty

In the United States, these murders are referred to as first-degree or aggravated murders. In 2004, American Ryan Holle was convicted of first-degree murder for lending his car to a friend, who used the car in a burglary during which a murder was committed. Holle was convicted under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.^[34]

Year-and-a-day rule[link]

In some common law jurisdictions, a defendant accused of murder is not guilty if the victim survives for longer than one year and one day after the attack.^[35] This reflects the likelihood that if the victim dies, other factors will have contributed to the cause of death, breaking the chain of causation. Subject to any statute of limitations, the accused could still be charged with an offence representing the seriousness of the initial assault.

With advances in modern medicine, most countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts of the case.

In England and Wales, due to medical advancements, the "year-and-a-day-rule" is no longer in use. However, if death occurs three years or more after the original attack then prosecution can take place only with the Attorney-General's approval.

In the United States, many jurisdictions have abolished the rule as well.^[36][37] Abolition of the rule has been accomplished by enactment of statutory criminal codes, which had the effect of displacing the common-law definitions of crimes and corresponding defenses. In 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States held that retroactive application of a state supreme court decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.^[38]

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a 74-year-old man, William Barnes, was acquitted of murder charges on May 24, 2010. He was on trial for murder for the death of Philadelphia police officer Walter Barkley. Barnes shot Barkley on November 27, 1966, and served 16 years in prison for attempted murder. Barkley died on August 19, 2007, allegedly from complications of the wounds suffered nearly 41 years earlier.^[39]

Epidemiology[link]

Murders (per 100,000 people per annum) (1998-2000) by country

An estimated 520,000 people were murdered in 2000 around the globe. Two-fifths of them were young people between the ages of 10 and 29 who were killed by other young people.^[40] Because murder is the least likely crime to go unreported, statistics of murder are seen as a bellwether of overall crime rates.^[41]

Murder rates vary greatly among countries and societies around the world. In the Western world, murder rates in most countries have declined significantly during the 20th century and are now between 1-4 cases per 100,000 people per year. Murder rates in Japan, Ireland and Iceland are among the lowest in the world, around 0.5 cases per 100,000 people per year; the rate of the United States is among the highest of developed countries, around 5.5 in 2004,^[42] with rates in larger cities sometimes over 40 per 100,000.^[43] In the United States, 666,160 people were killed between 1960 and 1996.^[44]

Approximately 90% of murders are committed by males ^[45] Between 1976 and 2005, 23.5% of all murder victims and 64.8% of victims murdered by intimate partners were female. ^[46] For women in the US, homicide is the leading cause of death in the workplace.^[47] There is a sharp peak in the age distribution of murderers between the ages of 18 and 30.^{[citation needed]} People become less likely to commit a murder as they age.

The following absolute murder counts per-country are not comparable because they are not adjusted by each country's total population. Nonetheless, they are included here for reference. There were an estimated 43,016 murders in Brazil in 2010, down from 51,043 in 2003.^[48][49] 32,719 murder cases were registered across India in 2007, about 30,000 murders committed annually in the early 2000s (down to 17000 in 2009) in Russia, approximately 16,000^[50] murders in Colombia in 2009 (the murder rate was 36 per 100,000 people, in 2005 murders went down to 15,000^[51]), approximately 20,000 murders each year in South Africa, approximately 17,000 murders in the United States, approximately 15,000 murders in Mexico, approximately 16,000 murders in Venezuela,^[52] approximately 6,000 murders in El Salvador, approximately 1,600 murders in Jamaica,^[53] approximately 1,000 murders in France, approximately 580 murders per year in Canada,^[54] approximately 560 murders in Trinidad and Tobago ^[55] and approximately 200 murders in Chile.^[56] The murder rate in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea is 23 times that of London.^[57] Pakistan reported 9,631 murders.^[58]

Murder in Rio de Janeiro. More than 500,000 people died from gun violence in Brazil between 1979 and 2003.^[59]

In the US, murder is the leading cause of death for African American males aged 15 to 34. Between 1976 and 2008, African Americans were victims of 329,825 homicides.^[60][61] In 2006, Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report indicated that nearly half of the 14,990 murder victims were Black (7421).^[62] In the year 2007 non-negligent homicides, there were 3,221 black victims and 3,587 white victims. While 2,905 of the black victims were killed by a black offender, 2,918 of the white victims were killed by white offenders. There were 566 white victims of black offenders and 245 black victims of white offenders.^[63] It should be noted that the "white" category in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) includes non-black Hispanics.^[64] In London in 2006, 75% of the victims of gun crime and 79% of the suspects were "from the African/Caribbean community."^[65] Murder demographics are affected by the improvement of trauma care, which has resulted in reduced lethality of violent assaults—thus the murder rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of social violence.^[66]

Workplace homicide is the fastest growing category of murder in America.^[67]

Development of murder rates over time in different countries is often used by both supporters and opponents of capital punishment and gun control. Using properly filtered data, it is possible to make the case for or against either of these issues. For example, one could look at murder rates in the United States from 1950 to 2000,^[68] and notice that those rates went up sharply shortly after a moratorium on death sentences was effectively imposed in the late 1960s. This fact has been used to argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent and, as such, it is morally justified. Capital punishment opponents frequently counter that the United States has much higher murder rates than Canada and most European Union countries, although all those countries have abolished the death penalty. Overall, the global pattern is too complex, and on average, the influence of both these factors may not be significant and could be more social, economic, and cultural.

Despite the immense improvements in forensics in the past few decades, the fraction of murders solved has decreased in the United States, from 90% in 1960 to 61% in 2007.^[69] Solved murder rates in major U.S. cities varied in 2007 from 36% in Boston, Massachusetts to 76% in San Jose, California.^[70] Major factors affecting the arrest rate include witness cooperation^[69] and the number of people assigned to investigate the case.^[70]

History[link]

The murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered the start of World War I. This picture was long believed to depict the culprit, Gavrilo Princip, though the person arrested is allegedly one of Princip's accomplices.

According to scholar Pieter Spierenburg murder rates per 100,000 in Europe have fallen over the centuries, from 35 per 100,000 in medieval times, to 20 in 1500 AD, 5 in 1700, to below two per 100,000 in 1900.^[71]

In the United States, murder rates have been higher and have fluctuated. They fell below 2 per 100,000 by 1900, rose during the first half of the century, dropped in the years following World War II, bottomed out at 4.0 in 1957 before rising again.^[72] The rate stayed in 9 to 10 range most of the period from 1972 to 1994, before falling to 5 in present times.^[71] The increase since 1957 would have been even greater if not for the significant improvements in medical techniques and emergency response times, which mean that more and more attempted homicide victims survive. According to one estimate, if the lethality levels of criminal assaults of 1964 still applied in 1993, the country would have seen the murder rate of around 26 per 100,000, almost triple the actually observed rate of 9.5 per 100,000.^[73]

A similar, but less pronounced pattern has been seen in major European countries as well. The murder rate in the United Kingdom fell to 1 per 100,000 by the beginning of the 20th century and as low as 0.62 per 100,000 in 1960, and was at 1.28 per 100,000 as of 2009^[update]. The murder rate in France (excluding Corsica) bottomed out after World War II at less than 0.4 per 100,000, quadrupling to 1.6 per 100,000 since then.^[74]

The specific factors driving this dynamics in murder rates are complex and not universally agreed upon. Much of the raise in the U.S. murder rate during the first half of the 20th century is generally thought to be attributed to gang violence associated with the Prohibition. Since most murders are committed by young males, the near simultaneous low in the murder rates of major developed countries circa 1960 can be attributed to low birth rates during the Great Depression and World War II. Causes of further moves are more controversial. Some of the more exotic factors claimed to affect murder rates include the availability of abortion^[75] and the likelihood of chronic exposure to lead during childhood (due to the use of leaded paint in houses and tetraethyllead as a gasoline additive in internal combustion engines).

In Corsica, vendetta was a social code that required Corsicans to kill anyone who wronged the family honor. It has been estimated that between 1683 and 1715, nearly 30,000 out of 120,000 Corsicans lost their lives to vendetta,^[76] and between 1821 and 1852, no less than 4,300 murders were perpetrated in Corsica.^[77]

Country-specific murder law[link]

Degrees of murder by country[link]

Certain countries employ the concept of first, second, and third degree murder. Canadian law distinguishes first and second degree murder. Both the United States and Peru have respective degrees of first, second, and third degree murder. See Degrees of murder in the United States and Murder (Peruvian Law).

See also[link]

• List of types of murder

Topics related to murder

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Lord Mustill on the Common Law concerning murder
• Sir Edward Coke Co. Inst., Pt. III, ch.7, p. 50

External links[link]

Look up murder in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Murder

• Murder in the UK - detailed site
• 1986 Seville Statement on Violence (from UNESCO)
• "This Could Never Happen to Me - A Handbook for Families of Murder Victims and People Who Assist Them" - Hosted by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
• Introduction and Updated Information on the Seville Statement on Violence
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control "Atlas of United States Mortality"
• Cezanne's depiction of "The Murder"

v t e Types of crime Note: Crimes vary by jurisdiction. Not all types are listed here. Classes Infraction · Misdemeanor · Felony · Summary · Indictable · Hybrid Against the person Assault · Battery · Cannibalism · Extortion · Harassment · Kidnapping · Identity theft · Manslaughter (corporate) · Murder · Rape · Robbery · Sexual assault Against property Arson · Blackmail · Burglary · Deception · Embezzlement · False pretenses · Fraud · Handling · Larceny · Theft · Vandalism Against public order Drug possession Against the state Tax evasion · Espionage · Treason Against justice Bribery · Misprision of felony · Obstruction · Perjury · Malfeasance in office Inchoate offenses Accessory · Attempt · Conspiracy · Incitement · Solicitation · Common purpose WikiSource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews

First degree may refer to:

• An undergraduate degree or a first professional degree
• First Degree, a drama series
• First degree murder
• A first degree burn
• First degree price discrimination
• First-degree atrioventricular block, a disease of the electrical conduction system of the heart
• Parent/offspring or sibling (first-degree relative)
• A first cousin (first-degree cousin)

See also[link]

• Second degree (disambiguation)
• In the 1st Degree, an interactive legal drama adventure computer game

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (June 2011)

Melanie McGuire (born Melanie Lyn Slate on October 8, 1972) is a New Jersey woman best known for being the perpetrator in the media-dubbed "suitcase murder." She was convicted of murdering her husband in April 2004 and was sentenced to life in prison on July 19, 2007. Melanie is serving her sentence at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Clinton, New Jersey. Barring a successful appeal, she will not be eligible for parole until she is 100 years old.^[1]

Murder[link]

In April 2004, Melanie McGuire and her husband Bill had been married for five years. She was a nurse at a fertility clinic and he was a computer programmer. The two were raising two sons in a Woodbridge, New Jersey apartment. That month however, the couple planned to move to a larger home in Warren County. Melanie and Bill closed on their new house on April 28, 2004, but never moved in. That night, Melanie drugged her husband, shot him twice to death, and then dismembered his body. Melanie later put his dismembered remains into three matching suitcases, which were later found in the Chesapeake Bay. The day after Bill's murder, Melanie started covering her tracks. She began establishing an alibi, claiming after a domestic argument, her husband tied her up in their bathroom, stuffed a dryer sheet in her mouth, and stormed off. On April 30, 2004, Bill's 2002 Nissan Maxima was found outside the Flamingo Hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Five days later, the first suitcase containing Bill's remains was found near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. A murder investigation was launched.^[2]

Investigation[link]

On May 11, 2004, a second suitcase with Bill's remains is found, containing his head and torso. A third suitcase is recovered on May 16. Virginia Beach police released a composite sketch of the victim, which an acquaintance of Bill McGuire's recognized as being him. Melanie McGuire became the prime suspect in the investigation. Because the murder did not occur in Virginia, however, authorities turned over their investigation to New Jersey State Police.^[2] During the investigation, much incriminating evidence was uncovered against Melanie. On April 26, 2004, she purchased a .38 caliber handgun from a store in Easton, Pennsylvania. In addition, police also learned that Melanie had been having a long-term affair with a co-worker named Bradley Miller at the fertility clinic. Police believed that Melanie used a prescription from her work to drug her husband.^[3]

Charges / Trial[link]

On June 2, 2005, more than a year after the murder, Melanie McGuire was arrested at her new home in Brick, New Jersey and was charged with first-degree murder.^[3] Melanie was immediately booked into the Middlesex County Adult Correctional Center, but made her $750,000 bail. Through her attorneys, Joe Tacopina^[4], Steve Turano, and Marc Ward, she pled not guilty to the charges.

After being released on bail, Melanie faced additional charges on October 11, 2005. A four-count indictment came down from a state grand jury. Melanie's bail was raised to $2.1 million, but was again released. More than a year later, on October 26, 2006 Melanie was charged with two counts of hindering apprehension for allegedly writing letters to police aimed to get them off her trail. She again pleads not guilty and is released after posting $10,000 bail.

Almost three years after the crime, Melanie McGuire's murder trial commenced at the Middlesex County Courthouse in New Brunswick, New Jersey on March 5, 2007.^[2] Prosecutors contended her motive for murder was to take up a new life with her lover, Bradley Miller. Melanie still persisted she was innocent however, and claimed her husband was a compulsive gambler who owed money, and believed her husband was killed by the Atlantic City mob.

Verdict[link]

On April 23, 2007, Melanie McGuire's murder trial jury found her guilty of first-degree murder. She was also convicted of the lesser charges of perjury, desecration of human remains, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. However, Melanie was acquitted of the two counts of hindering apprehension, as well as tampering with evidence and possession of Xanax without prescription.^[5]

On July 19, 2007, the 34-year-old mother of two was sentenced to life in prison.^[6] In New Jersey, a life sentence is defined as a 75-year term, and under New Jersey's No Early Release Act, she must serve 85 percent of her sentence, or 63 3/4 years. In addition, the judge sentenced her to additional consecutive 2 1/2 year-term for perjury.^[1]

Aftermath[link]

Following her arraignment on murder charges, Melanie's case was dubbed as "the Suitcase murder" by various media outlets.

Author John Glatt wrote a book about the case, entitled "To Have and To Kill".^[7]

Melanie's case has been profiled on Snapped and Dateline NBC.

Her conviction was affirmed by an appeals court on March 16, 2011. On September 20, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to even hear her further appeal.

References[link]

Death of Caylee Anthony

Memorial near where Caylee Anthony's remains were found
Date	Last reported seen June 16, 2008 Reported missing July 15, 2008 Remains found December 11, 2008
Location	Orlando, Florida
Suspect(s)	Casey Anthony, mother, put on trial May 24, 2011
Verdict	July 5, 2011 Not guilty of first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, or aggravated manslaughter of a child. Guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – 2008) was an American two-year-old girl who was reported missing in Orlando, Florida, in July 2008, whose skeletal remains were found in a wooded area near her home in December 2008. Her then 22-year-old mother, Casey Marie Anthony, was tried for the first degree murder of Caylee but was acquitted. She was, however, convicted of misdemeanor counts of providing false information to police officers.

Caylee lived with her mother, Casey, and her maternal grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony. On July 15, 2008, Caylee was reported missing to 9-1-1 by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days and that Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside of it. She said Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts and finally admitted that day that she had not seen her daughter for weeks.^[1] Casey fabricated various stories, including telling detectives the child had been kidnapped by a fictitious nanny on June 9, and that she had been trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities.^[2] With the child still missing, Casey was charged with first degree murder in October and pled not guilty. On December 11, Caylee's skeletal remains were found with a blanket inside a trash bag in a wooded area near the family home.^[3][4] Investigative reports and trial testimony alternated between duct tape being found near the front of the skull^[5] and on the mouth of the skull.^[3][6][7][8] The medical examiner mentioned duct tape as one reason she ruled the death a homicide, but officially listed it as "death by undetermined means".^[9]

The trial lasted six weeks, from May to July 2011. The prosecution sought the death penalty^[10] and alleged Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform, then applying duct tape, because she wanted to free herself from parental responsibilities. The defense team, led by Jose Baez, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that Casey lied about this and other issues because of a dysfunctional upbringing, which they said included sexual abuse by her father. The defense did not present evidence as to how Caylee died, nor evidence that Casey was sexually abused as a child,^[11] but challenged every piece of the prosecution's evidence, calling much of it "fantasy forensics".^[12] Casey did not testify during the trial.

On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.^[13] With credit for time served, she was released on July 17. The verdict was greeted with public outrage, and was both attacked and defended by media and legal commentators. Some complained that the jury misunderstood the meaning of reasonable doubt,^[14] while others said the prosecution relied too heavily on the defendant's allegedly poor moral character because they had been unable to show conclusively how the victim had died.^[15] Time magazine described the case as "the social media trial of the century".^[16]

Disappearance[link]

According to Casey Anthony's father, George Anthony, Casey left the family's home on June 16, 2008,^[17] taking her daughter, Caylee (who was almost three) with her and did not return for 31 days.^[18] Casey's mother Cindy asked repeatedly during the month to see Caylee, but Casey claimed that she was too busy with a work assignment in Tampa, Florida. At other times, she said Caylee was with a nanny, who Casey identified by the name of Zenaida "Zanny" Fernandez-Gonzalez, or at theme parks or the beach.^[19] It was eventually determined that a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez did in fact exist, but that she had never met Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, any member of the Anthony family, or any of Casey's friends.^[20]

On July 13, 2008, while doing yard work, Cindy and George Anthony found a notice from the post office for a certified letter affixed on their front door. George Anthony picked up the certified letter from the post office on July 15, 2008, and found that his daughter's car was in a tow yard.^[21] When George picked up the car, both he and the tow yard attendant noted a strong smell coming from the trunk. Both later stated that they believed the odor to be that of a decomposing body.^[22] When the trunk was opened, it contained a bag of trash, but no human remains.^[23]

Cindy Anthony reported Caylee missing that day, July 15, to the Orange County Sheriff's Office.^[17] During the same telephone call, Casey Anthony confirmed to the 911 operator that Caylee had been missing for 31 days. Sounding distraught, Cindy said: "There is something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."^[24]

Case[link]

Investigation[link]

A crime scene photo admitted into evidence shows the wooded area where Caylee Anthony's body was found.

When Detective Yuri Melich, with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, began investigating the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, he found discrepancies in Casey's signed statement.^[25] When questioned, Casey said Caylee had been kidnapped by Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, who she also identified as "Zanny", Caylee's nanny. Although Casey had talked about her, Zanny had never been seen by Casey's family or friends, and in fact there was no nanny.^[19][26] Casey also told police that she was working at Universal Studios, a lie she had been telling her parents for years. Investigators brought Casey to Universal Studios on July 16, 2008, the day after Caylee was reported missing, and asked her to show them her office. Casey led police around for a while before admitting that she had been fired years before.^[27][28]

Casey Anthony was first arrested on July 16, 2008,^[17] and was charged the following day with giving false statements to law enforcement, child neglect, and obstruction of a criminal investigation. The judge denied bail, saying Casey had shown "woeful disregard for the welfare of her child".^[26] On August 21, 2008, after one month of incarceration, she was released from the Orange County jail after her $500,200 bond was posted by the nephew of California bail bondsman Leonard Padilla^[29] in hopes that she would cooperate and Caylee would be found.^[30]

On August 11, 12, and 13, 2008, meter reader Roy Kronk called police about a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence.^[31] In the first instance, he was directed by the sheriff's office to call the tip line, which he did, receiving no return call. On the second instance, he again called the sheriff's office, eventually was met by two police officers and reported to them that he had seen what appeared to be a skull near a gray bag.^[32][33] On that occasion, the officer conducted a short search and stated he did not see anything. On December 11, 2008, Kronk again called the police. They searched and found the remains of a child in a trash bag.^[3] Investigative teams recovered duct tape which was hanging from Caylee's hair and some tissue left on her skull.^[3] Over the next four days, more bones were found in the wooded area near the spot where the remains initially had been discovered.^{[3][34] [35][36]} On December 19, 2008, medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia confirmed that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony. The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined.^[37]

Arrests and charges[link]

Casey Anthony at the time of her arrest on July 16, 2008

Casey Anthony was offered a limited immunity deal on July 29, 2008, by prosecutors related to "the false statements given to law enforcement about locating her child", which was renewed on August 25, to expire August 28.^[38] She did not take it.^[39]

On September 5, 2008, she was released again on bail on all pending charges after being fitted with an electronic tracking device.^[40] Her $500,000 bond was posted by her parents, Cindy and George Anthony, who signed a promissory note for the bond.^[41][42]

On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony was indicted by a grand jury on charges of first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police. She was later arrested.^[43][44] Judge John Jordan ordered that she be held without bond.^[45] On October 21, 2008, the charges of child neglect were dropped against Casey, according to the State Attorney's Office because "[as] the evidence proved that the child was deceased, the State sought an indictment on the legally appropriate charges."^[46] On October 28 Anthony was arraigned and pled not guilty to all charges.^[47]

On April 13, 2009, prosecutors announced that they planned to seek the death penalty in the case.^[48]

Evidence[link]

Four-hundred pieces of evidence were presented.^[11] A strand of hair was recovered from the trunk of Casey's car which was microscopically similar^[49] to hair taken from Caylee Anthony's hairbrush.^[50] The strand showed "root-banding," in which hair roots form a dark band after death, which was consistent with hair from a dead body.^[49]

The discoverer of the remains repeated the same basic story that he had told police.^[51] On Friday, October 24, 2008, a forensic report by Dr. Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory judged that results from an air sampling procedure (called LIBS) performed in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car showed chemical compounds "consistent with a decompositional event" based on the presence of five key chemical compounds out of over 400 possible chemical compounds that Dr. Vass' research group considers typical of decomposition. Investigators stated that the trunk smelled strongly of human decomposition,^[52] but human decomposition was not specified on the laboratory scale. The process has not been affirmed by a Daubert Test in the courts.^[53] Dr. Vass' group also stated there was chloroform in the car trunk.^[54]

In October 2009, officials released 700 pages of documents related to the Anthony investigation, which included records of Google searches of the terms "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform" on a computer accessible to Casey Anthony, presented by the prosecutors as evidence of a crime.^[52][55][56]

According to detectives, crime scene evidence included residue of a heart-shaped sticker found on duct tape over the mouth of Caylee's skull.^[3][6][7][8] However, the laboratory was not able to capture a heart-shape photographically after some duct tape was subjected to dye testing.^[8] A blanket was found at the crime scene that matched Caylee's bedding at her grandparents' home.^[4]

Among photos that were entered into evidence was one from the computer of Ricardo Morales, an ex-boyfriend of Casey Anthony, that depicts a poster with the caption "Win her over with Chloroform".^[57]

Witness John Dennis Bradley's software, developed for computer investigations, was used by the prosecution to indicate that Casey Anthony had conducted extensive computer searches on the word "chloroform" 84 times, suggesting that Anthony had planned to commit murder.^[58] On June 21, Bradley discovered that a flaw in the software misread the forensic data and that the word "chloroform" had been searched for only one time and the website in question offered information on the use of chloroform in the 19th century. He immediately alerted prosecutor Linda Burdick and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office the weekend of June 25 about the discrepancy, and volunteered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to show them.^[58][59] The prosecution stated they discussed the issue with defense attorney Jose Baez on June 27 and he raised the issue in court testimony and in closing.^[60] Baez also asked Judge Perry to instruct the jury about this search information, but prosecutors disputed this and it was not done. On July 5, prosecutors state that, during deliberations, they were about to give the jury the corrected information; however, the jury reached a verdict before they could do so. One legal analyst stated that if the jury had found Anthony guilty before receiving the exculpatory evidence, the prosecution's failure to fully disclose it could have been grounds for a mistrial.^[61]

Criminal trial[link]

Attorneys and jury[link]

The lead prosecutor in the case was Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick. Assistant State Attorneys Frank George and Jeff Ashton completed the prosecution team.^[62] Lead counsel for the defense was Jose Baez, a Florida criminal defense attorney. Attorneys J. Cheney Mason, Dorothy Clay Sims, and Ann Finnell served as co-counsel.^[63] During the trial, attorney Mark Lippman represented George and Cindy Anthony.^[64]

Selection of the jury began on May 9, 2011, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater, Florida, because the case had been so widely reported in the Orlando area. Jurors were brought from Pinellas County to Orlando.^[65] Jury selection took longer than expected and ended on May 20, 2011, with twelve jurors and five alternates being sworn in.^[66] The panel contained nine women and eight men. The trial took six weeks, during which time the jury was sequestered to avoid influence from information available outside the courtroom.^[67]

Opening statements and witness testimony[link]

The trial began on May 24, 2011, at the Orange County Courthouse, with Judge Belvin Perry presiding. In the opening statements, lead prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick described the story of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony day-by-day.^[68] The prosecution alleged an intentional murder and sought the death penalty against Casey Anthony.^[69] Prosecutors stated that Anthony used chloroform to render her daughter unconscious before putting duct tape over her nose and mouth to suffocate her, and left Caylee's body in the trunk of her car for a few days before disposing of it.^[4] They painted Anthony as a party girl who killed her daughter to free herself from parental responsibility and enjoy her personal life.^[70]

The defense, led by Jose Baez, claimed in opening statements that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family's pool on June 16, 2008, and was found by George Anthony, who told Casey she would spend the rest of her life in jail for child neglect and then proceeded to cover up Caylee’s death. Baez argued this is why Casey Anthony went on with her life and failed to report the incident for 31 days. He alleged that it was the habit of a lifetime for Casey to hide her pain and pretend nothing was wrong because she had been sexually abused by George Anthony since she was eight years old and her brother Lee also had made advances toward her.^[68] He admitted that Casey had lied about there being a nanny named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales.^[71] Baez also questioned whether Roy Kronk, the meter reader who found the bones, actually had removed them from another location. And he alleged the police department botched the investigation because of their desire to feed a media frenzy about a child’s murder rather than a more mundane drowning.^[72]

Prosecutors called George Anthony as their first witness, and, in a response to their question, he denied having sexually abused his daughter Casey.^[73] Anthony testified he did not smell anything resembling human decomposition in Casey's car when she visited him on June 24,^[57] but he did smell something similar to human decomposition when he picked the car up on July 15.^[74] Cindy Anthony testified that her comment to 9-1-1 that Casey’s car smelled "like someone died" was just a "figure of speech".^[75]

Baez asked an FBI analyst about the paternity test the FBI conducted to see if Lee was Caylee's father. She told the jury the test had come back negative.^[76]

Regarding a photo on the computer of Ricardo Morales, an ex-boyfriend of Casey Anthony, depicting a poster with the caption "Win her over with Chloroform," Morales said that the photo was on his Myspace page and that he had never discussed chloroform with Anthony or searched for chloroform on her computer.^[57]

The prosecution called John Dennis Bradley, a former Canadian law enforcement officer who develops software for computer investigations, to analyze a data file from a desktop taken from the Anthony home.^[58] Bradley said he was able to use a program to recover deleted searches from March 17 and March 21, 2008, and that someone searched the website Sci-spot.com for "chloroform" 84 times. Bradley expressed his belief that "some of these items might have been bookmarked". Under cross-examination by the defense, Bradley agreed there were two individual accounts on the desktop and that there was no way to know who actually performed the searches.^[56] Bradley later discovered that his analysis was inaccurate and that there was only one search for chloroform, though this information was not presented to jurors by the prosecution (see above).^[58][60][61]

K9 handler Jason Forgey testified that Gerus, a German shepherd cadaver dog certified in 2005, indicated a high alert of human decomposition in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, saying the police dog has had real-world searches numbering "over three thousand by now". During cross-examination, Baez argued that the dog’s search records were "hearsay".^[77] Sgt. Kristin Brewer also testified that her K9 partner, Bones, signaled decomposition in the backyard during a search in July 2008. However, neither K9 partner was able to detect decomposition during a second visit to the Anthony home. Brewer explained that this was because whatever had been in the yard was either moved or the odor dissipated.^[78]

The prosecution called the chief medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia to the stand, who testified that she determined Caylee's manner of death to be homicide but listed it as "death by undetermined means". Garavaglia took into account the physical evidence present on the remains she examined, as well as all the available information on the way they were found and what she had been told by the authorities, before arriving at her determination. "We know by our observations that it's a red flag when a child has not been reported to authorities with injury, there's foul play," Garavaglia said. " ... There is no child that should have duct tape on [the lower part of] its face when it dies." Additionally, Garavaglia addressed the chloroform evidence found by investigators inside the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, testifying that even a small amount of chloroform would be sufficient to cause the death of a child.^[9]

University of Florida professor and human identification laboratory director Michael Warren was brought on by the prosecution to present a computer animation of the way duct tape could have been used in the death of the child, which the defense objected to hearing. Judge Perry, after a short recess to review, ruled that the video could be shown to the jury. The animation featured a picture of Caylee Anthony taken alongside Casey Anthony, superimposed with an image of Caylee's decomposed skull, and another with a strip of duct tape that was recovered with her remains. The images were slowly brought together showing that the duct tape could have covered her nose and mouth. Baez stated, "This disgusting superimposition is nothing more than a fantasy ...They're throwing things against the wall and seeing if it sticks." Jurors were seen taking notes of the imagery, and Warren testified that it was his opinion that the duct tape found with Caylee's skull was placed there before her body began decomposing.^[9]

FBI latent print examiner Elizabeth Fontaine testified that adhesive in the shape of a heart was found on a corner of a piece of duct tape that was covering the mouth portion of Caylee's remains during ultraviolet testing. Fontaine examined three pieces of duct tape found on Caylee's remains for fingerprints, and said she did not find fingerprints but did not expect to, given the months the tape and the remains had been outdoors and exposed to the elements, stressing that any oil or sweat from a person's fingertips would have long since deteriorated. Though Fontaine showed the findings to her supervisor, she did not initially try to photograph the heart-shaped adhesive, explaining, "When I observe something is unexpected, I note it and continue with my examination." During the defense's cross-examination, Fontaine explained that when she examined the sticker evidence a second time, after subjecting the tape to dye testing, "It was no longer visible."^[8][79] She said that other FBI agents had tested the duct tape in the interim.^[79]

The defense called two government witnesses who countered prosecution witness testimony about the duct tape. The chief investigator for the medical examiner stated that the original placement of the duct tape was unclear and it could have shifted positions as he collected the remains.^[5] Cindy Anthony testified that their family buried their pets in blankets and plastic bags, using duct tape to seal the opening.^[80] Additionally, an FBI forensic document examiner found no evidence of a sticker or sticker residue on the duct tape found near the child's remains.^[76][81]

The defense called forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, who performed a second autopsy on Caylee after Garavagli and challenged Garavaglia's autopsy report. He called her autopsy "shoddy," saying it was a failure that Caylee's skull was not opened during her examination. "You need to examine the whole body in an autopsy," he said. Spitz stated that he was not allowed to attend Garavaglia's initial autopsy on Caylee's remains, and that, from his own follow-up autopsy, he was not comfortable ruling the child's death a homicide. He said he could not determine what Caylee Anthony's manner of death was, but said that there was no indication to him that she was murdered. Additionally, Spitz testified that he believed the duct tape found on Caylee's skull was placed there after the body decomposed, opining that if tape was placed on the skin, there should have been DNA left on it, and suggested that someone may have staged some of the crime scene photos. "The person who took this picture, the person who prepared this, put the hair there," stated Spitz. When asked by Ashton during cross-examination, "So your testimony is the medical examiner's personnel took the hair that wasn't on the skull, placed it there?", Spitz answered, "It wouldn't be the first time, sir. I can tell you some horror stories about that."^[82]

Baez called Cindy Anthony to the stand, who told jurors she had been the one who performed the "chloroform" search on the family computer in March 2008. The prosecution alleged that only Casey Anthony could have conducted this search and the others because she was the only one home at the time. When asked by prosecutors how she could have made the Internet searches when employment records show she was at work, Cindy Anthony said despite what her work time sheet indicates, she was at home during these time periods because she left from work early during the days in question.^[83]

The judge temporarily halted proceedings on June 25 when the defense filed a motion to determine if Anthony was competent to proceed with trial. The motion states the defense received a privileged communication from their client which caused them to believe "...Ms. Anthony is not competent to aid and assist in her own defense".^[84] The trial resumed on June 27 when the judge announced that the results of the psychological evaluations showed Anthony was competent to proceed.^[85] Later, in testimony about air samples, Dr. Ken Furton, a professor of chemistry at Florida International University, stated that there is no consensus in the field on what chemicals are typical of human decomposition.^[85] Judge Perry ruled that the jury would not get to smell air samples taken from the trunk.^[11]

On June 27, the defense called two private investigators who, in November 2008, had searched the area where the body was later found. The search was videotaped, but nothing was found.^[86] On June 28, the defense called a Texas EquuSearch team leader who did two searches of the area and found no body.^[87] The defense then called Roy Kronk, who recounted the same basic story he told police about his discovery of Caylee Anthony's remains in December 2008.^[51] He acknowledged receiving $5,000 after the remains were identified, but denied that he told his son that finding the body would make him rich and famous.^[87] The next day, his son testified he had made such statements.^[88]

On June 30, the defense called Krystal Holloway, a volunteer in the search for Caylee, who stated that she had an affair with George Anthony, he had been to her home and that he had texted her, "Just thinking about you. I need you in my life." She told the defense that George Anthony had told her that Caylee's death was "an accident that snowballed out of control." Under cross-examination by prosecutors, they pointed to her sworn police statement in which she says George Anthony believes it was an accident, rather than knowing that it was. In her initial report, Holloway reported George Anthony saying, "I really believe that it was an accident that just went wrong and (Casey Anthony) tried to cover it up." She said he had not told her he was present when the alleged accident occurred.^[89][90] During redirect examination, Baez asked Holloway if Anthony told her Caylee was dead while stating publicly she was missing, and she said yes.^[91]

In his earlier testimony, George Anthony denied the affair with Holloway and said he only visited her because she was ill.^[89] He said he sent the text message because he needed everyone who had helped in his life.^[91] After Holloway's testimony, Judge Perry told jurors that it could be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but that it was not proof of how Caylee died and/or evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.^[89]

The prosecution rested its case on June 15, after calling 59 witnesses for 70 different testimonies. The defense rested its case on June 30, after calling 47 witnesses for 63 different testimonies.^[92][93] Casey Anthony did not testify.^[94]

On June 30 and July 1, the prosecutor presented rebuttal arguments, beginning by showing the jury photographs of Caylee’s clothes and George’s suicide note.^[91] It called two representatives of Cindy Anthony’s former employer who explained why their computer login system shows Cindy was at work the afternoon she said she went home early and searched her computer for information about chloroform. A police computer analyst testified someone had purposely searched online for “neck + breaking.” Another analyst testified she did not find evidence that Cindy Anthony had searched certain terms she claimed to have searched. Anthropology professor Dr. Michael Warren from the University of Florida was recalled to rebut a defense witness on the need to open a skull during an autopsy. The lead detective stated that there were no phone calls between Cindy and George Anthony during the week of June 16, 2008. However, he told the defense he did not know that George had a second cell phone.^[95][96]

Closing arguments[link]

Closing arguments were heard July 3 and July 4.^[97] Jeff Ashton, for the prosecution, told the jury, "When you have a child, that child becomes your life. This case is about the clash between that responsibility, and the expectations that go with it, and the life that Casey Anthony wanted to have."^[70] He outlined the state's case against Casey Anthony, touching on her many lies to her parents and others, the smell in her car's trunk—identified by several witnesses, including her own father, as the odor from human decomposition—and the items found with Caylee's skeletal remains in December 2008.^[4] He emphasized how Anthony "maintains her lies until they absolutely cannot be maintained any more" and then replaces [them] with another lie, using "Zanny the Nanny" as an example. Anthony repeatedly told police that Caylee was with the nanny that she specifically identifies as Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. Police, however, were never able to find the nanny. Authorities did find a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, but she denied ever meeting the Anthonys.^[4]

Ashton reintroduced the items found with Caylee's remains, including a Winnie the Pooh blanket that matched the bedding at her grandparents' home, one of a set of laundry bags with the twin bag found at the Anthony home, and duct tape he said was a relatively rare brand. "That bag is Caylee's coffin", Ashton said, holding up a photograph of the laundry bag, as Casey Anthony reacted with emotion.^[4] He further criticized the defense's theory that Caylee drowned in the Anthony pool and that Casey and George Anthony panicked upon finding the child's body and covered up her death. He advised jurors to use their common sense when deciding on a verdict. "No one makes an accident look like murder", he said.^[4]

Before closing arguments, Judge Perry ruled that the defense could argue that a drowning occurred due to reasonable conclusions aided by witness testimony,^[98] but that arguing sexual abuse was not allowed since there was nothing to support the claim that George Anthony sexually abused Casey Anthony.^[4] Baez contended that there were holes in the prosecution's forensic evidence, saying it was based on a "fantasy". He told the jury that the prosecution wanted them to see stains and insects that did not really exist, that they had not proven that the stains in Anthony's car trunk were caused by Caylee's decomposing body, rather than from a trash bag found there. He added that the prosecutors tried to make his client look like a promiscuous liar because their evidence was weak.^[70] He said the drowning is "the only explanation that makes sense" and showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself. He stressed that there were no child safety locks in the home and that both of Casey Anthony's parents, George and Cindy Anthony, testified that Caylee could get out of the house easily.^[4] Although Cindy Anthony testified that Caylee could not put the ladder on the side of the pool and climb up, Baez alleged that Cindy Anthony may have left the ladder up the night before. "She didn't admit to doing so in testimony", he said, "but how much guilt would she have knowing it was her that left the ladder up that day?"^[4]

Defense attorney Jose Baez told jurors his biggest fear was that they would base their verdict on emotions, not evidence. "The strategy behind that is, if you hate her, if you think she's a lying, no-good slut, then you'll start to look at this evidence in a different light", he said. "I told you at the very beginning of this case that this was an accident that snowballed out of control... What made it unique is not what happened, but who it happened to." He explained Casey Anthony's behavior as being the result of her dysfunctional family situation. At one point as Baez spoke, Ashton could be seen smiling or chuckling behind his hand. This prompted Baez to refer to him as "this laughing guy right here". The judge called a sidebar conference, then a recess. When court resumed, he chastised both sides, saying both Ashton and Baez had violated his order that neither side should make disparaging remarks about opposing counsel. After both attorneys apologized, the judge accepted the apologies but warned that a recurrence would have the offending attorney excluded from the courtroom.^[4]

Defense attorney Cheney Mason then followed with an additional closing argument. Addressing the jury to discuss the charges against Casey Anthony. "The burden rests on the shoulders of my colleagues at the state attorney's office", Mason said, referring to proving that Casey Anthony committed a crime. Mason said that the jurors are required, whether they like it or not, to find the defendant not guilty if the state did not adequately prove its case against Casey Anthony.^[70][99] Mason emphasized that the burden of proof is on the state, and that Casey Anthony's decision not to testify is not an implication of guilt.^[70]

Lead prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick in the prosecution rebuttal told the jurors that she and her colleagues backed up every claim they made in their opening statement six weeks ago, and implied that the defense never directly backed up their own opening-statement claims.^[70] "My biggest fear is that common sense will be lost in all the rhetoric of the case," she said, insisting that she would never ask the jury to make their decision based on emotion but rather the evidence.^[100] "Responses to guilt are oh, so predictable," she stated. "What do guilty people do? They lie, they avoid, they run, they mislead... they divert attention away from themselves and they act like nothing is wrong." She suggested that the garbage bag in the trunk of the car was a "decoy" put there to keep people from getting suspicious about the smell of the car when she left it abandoned in a parking stall directly beside a dumpster in an Amscot parking lot. "Whose life was better without Caylee?" she asked, stressing how George and Cindy Anthony were wondering where their daughter and granddaughter were in June and July 2008, the same time Casey was staying at her boyfriend’s apartment while Caylee's body was decomposing in the woods. "That’s the only question you need to answer in considering why Caylee Marie Anthony was left on the side of the road dead." Burdick then showed the jury a split-screen with a photo of Casey partying at a night club on one side and a close-up of the "Bella Vita" (meaning "Beautiful Life") tattoo that she got weeks after Caylee died on the other.^[100]

The jury began deliberations on July 4.^[101]