Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Jury to Begin Deliberating in Casey Anthony Trial; Celebrating the Troops; Hot Dog Eating Contest

Aired July 04, 2011 - 10:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Live from Studio 7, I'm Suzanne Malveaux.

Happy Independence Day. Want to get you up to speed for the 4th of July.

The nation's most captivating murder trial in years should be in the jury's hands sometime today. Casey Anthony winced at times today as prosecutors rebutted her defense team's closing argument. The defense says Anthony's daughter, 2-year-old Caylee, accidentally drowned in the family's pool and her grandfather buried her in a panic. Prosecutors contend that Casey Anthony killed her daughter so that she could party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: Getting past the fact that there's just no conceivable reason why anybody would put Duct tape on the face of a dead child, I said it before, people don't make accidents look like murder. That's absurd.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: I want to take you inside the courtroom. Some live pictures here. We're listening to a tape, an audiotape of a telephone conversation, I believe, with Casey Anthony from jail.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY ANTHONY'S MOTHER: Oh, my God. She finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your daughter admitted that the baby is where?

ANTHONY: That the babysitter her a month ago, that my daughter has been looking for. I told you my daughter was missing for a month. I just found her today, but I can't find my granddaughter.

And she just admitted to me that she's been trying to find her herself. There's something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. What is the 3-year-old's name? (END AUDIO CLIP)

LINDA DRANE BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Was George Anthony's life better? Mr. Ashton went over what George Anthony's life was like as a result of losing his beloved granddaughter.

Whose life was better? That's the only question you need to answer in considering why Caylee Marie Anthony was left on the side of the road dead. There's your answer.

Thank you, Your Honor.

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, ORANGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: OK.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we're going to take a brief recess. When you return, you will hear the final instructions on the law from the court. We will be in recess.

MALVEAUX: The judge is taking a brief recess.

I want to bring in our David Mattingly, who is actually there at the courthouse proceedings, to explain what we've just watched.

David, bring us up to speed here.

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Suzanne, we have been listening to prosecutor Linda Burdick, and she closed for the prosecution with her final arguments. The last thing that the jury heard from her and the last thing that the jury saw was what they believe was the motive behind this crime.

They showed pictures of Casey Anthony out on the town partying, and with the tattoo that she had placed on her shoulder while her daughter was supposedly missing. That tattoo reading "The beautiful life," translated from Italian. So, that, a very strong message to the jury that this woman had a motive and she had a plan to change her life once her little daughter was out of the way.

Now, earlier, we heard her call Casey Anthony a pathological liar, and she said that the fact that this child was supposedly missing for 31 days, and the mother told no one about it, in her mind, is an admission of guilt.

And listen to what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURDICK: The defendant's actions and responses during those 31 days answer for you the only real question left at this stage of the proceedings. And that is, who killed Caylee Anthony?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That's going to be up to the jury to decide now. The prosecution is done. The defense is done. There's going to be no more arguing. The closing remarks are done. The judge will now come back after this recess and tell the jurors what they need to keep in mind, what rules they need to follow as they come up with a verdict in this case. And they have a lot to consider. There's been 33 days of testimony and countless witnesses going up on that stand.

Again, Suzanne, they have a lot to consider in this trial, and they have the final say about the fate of Casey Anthony.

MALVEAUX: All right. David, thank you.

I want to bring in our legal expert Holly Hughes, who has been following this.

And we understand that the defense attorney just made a motion to dismiss this and then the judge denied it. That's pretty typical, right?

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is standard. Any time that there's a problem with something the defense disagrees about, they think improper evidence is before the jury and it's so prejudicial, that the jury can't be fair anymore, they're going to say to the judge, all right, mis-try this case. You have to stop it all. Let's go start over.

And obviously, Judge Belvin Perry is not going to let that happen at this late stage. And it's completely within his province. That's the thing about asking for a mistrial. The judge is sitting on the bench in front of you. That judge, he or she, is the one who's going to decide, and them alone.

MALVEAUX: What did you hear today that really struck you?

HUGHES: Wow. OK, we went right back to the beginning, Suzanne.

In the very beginning of this case, eight weeks ago, the prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, ,stood up and she said this is not about Casey Anthony. Now is the time to tell the story of Caylee Anthony.

And what I saw was full circle. What she did, very effectively, after prosecutor Jeff Ashton got up, talked about the forensics, talked about the science, said to the jury, we know it's confusing. But then Linda Drane Burdick got up and she brought it all back home when she said this case is about a little 2-and-a-half-year-old. This case is about a 2-and-a-half-year-old who was sacrificed because her mother wanted the beautiful life, she wanted to go party.

And when you look at all this evidence, and when you look at who was the last person seen with that child, who did the chloroform searches, who had a dead body in their trunk, who went out and partied like a rock star, when you look at all that, who else could have murdered this beautiful 2-year-old girl? Because everybody else was crazy about her except her mother. She was getting in the way.

MALVEAUX: What are the jurors faced with now? They're going to be getting some instructions. They've been sequestered. I imagine that after six weeks or so, they're itching to get something done here and wrap this things up.

HUGHES: Yes. That is the most frustrating thing about being a sequestered jury, is that you are told every single time you leave that courtroom -- we've seen Judge Belvin Perry perfect that record -- do not discuss this case, even amongst yourselves.

So you're sitting there all day and you're hearing this explosive evidence from either side. I mean, what's the natural tendency? What do we do? I mean, we just watch, and we're like, oh, my gosh, let's talk about this. Right?

That's a natural human tendency. And we tell these poor jurors, who are already locked away from their families, no TV, no newspapers, no phone access, no radio, and then we say to them, all this great stuff you heard in court, by the way, don't talk about it.

So, yes, you better believe that they are ready to go.

MALVEAUX: They're ready.

HUGHES: They want to do the job they've all sworn an oath to do, and they want to get going now.

MALVEAUX: As the legal expert, putting your hat on, do you think -- what do you make of what she's going to walk away with here? Do you think they're going to find her guilty, first-degree murder?

HUGHES: I do. I think it's back on the table. And I think that is because of the masterful job that Linda Drane Burdick did in weaving it all back together.

People get scared of circumstantial evidence, Suzanne, and everybody wants to pooh-pooh it. Oh, it's circumstantial. But here is the deal. When you lay out every single bit of evidence, you're building a wall, you are putting brick upon brick upon brick.

And when you do it all together, what you do is you build that solid wall of guilt. And even if there's one or two bricks missing, you know it's still a big brick wall.

And for those people who think that circumstantial evidence isn't enough, I've two words for you: Scott Peterson. He's sitting on death row right now in California with exactly the same type of case.

No cause of death, nobody saw him murder anybody. Nobody could link him forensically to any part of the death, but the jury looked at all of it together and they said, you know what? That's enough for that brick wall of guilt.

MALVEAUX: OK. And let's bring it back to Casey Anthony.

We saw her today. She mouthed something when it made it very clear the prosecutor was talking about her being a bad mother, tried to paint her as a bad mother. What do we think of how she's been behaving? Because we've seen her in all these various stages -- crying, sometimes stoic, sometimes serious. I mean -- HUGHES: Well, and actually, Suzanne, one of the charges that the judge is going to give -- and that's what we call it. Legally speaking, we say the judge is going to charge the jury. And basically, all it means is he's going to give them an instruction book, and the instruction book is, these are the laws that apply to this case. OK?

This is the first-degree murder charge. This is the aggravated manslaughter charge. This is the lying to a police officer charge. And then additional instructions like credibility of witnesses.

One of the things he's going to tell them is, hey, you can take into account everything you've observed in the courtroom.

MALVEAUX: Right.

HUGHES: So they're allowed to observe how Casey acted, even though she never took the stand and spoke. And they've got to be sitting there thinking to themselves, as she's mouthing words back -- and she was caught the other night mouthing something when her father was testifying, and some people are speculating she was calling him a curse word at the time.

So what they're sitting there thinking right now is, if you had so much to say, why didn't you take the stand? You know? They're going to get a charge that says you can't draw any negative inference, harmful or hurtful to the defendant, because she didn't testify, but common sense is going to prevail.

If you're sitting there, and all of a sudden you have all this stuff to say about the prosecution's case, why wouldn't you have taken the stand and said it?

MALVEAUX: All right. Holly, we understand that the jurors are going to be charged with those instructions in about 10 minutes or so. They've taken a quick recess. So we're going to come back to it, obviously, and see what's going to happen this afternoon. But there's a lot going on.

HUGHES: Yes, there is.

MALVEAUX: All right, Holly. You've got to stay with us now. OK?

HUGHES: I'm not going anywhere. This is great stuff.

MALVEAUX: Stay with me here. OK. Thank you, Holly.

Here's a rundown of some of the stories that we're looking ahead.

Celebrating Independence Day on the front line. We're going to hear from troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Then, an 800 credit story, 20 percent down, but no mortgage? Homebuyer horror stories continue to pile up.

Plus, lace it up for the world's largest 10k. We have a winner in Atlanta at the Peachtree Road Race. Don't want to miss that.

And oh my God. The July 4th hot dog hogs meet again to do battle on Coney Island. We continue to eat this up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: On this Independence Day, our Jason Carroll is in Afghanistan with the troops, and he spoke with our Kyra Phillips earlier.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's great to be here, Kyra, with these guys. As you know, we've been following some of them as part of our series, our year-long series.

Some Familiar faces like Sgt. Randy Shorter. He's actually received a promotion since the last time we spoke. He's now First Sgt. Randy Shorter.

We also have Sgt. Anthony Cook. So, these are two familiar faces. You probably remember them from our series.

But we also have a newer member, as well, who has just joined the platoon. We want to introduce you here.

And just sort of give us a sense of what it's been like for you to be here in the platoon joining these guys, joining these band of brothers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Definitely, Jason. I mean, from the moment I came in, you know, the guys kind of gave me that feeling out period -- hey, what's this guy all about? What kind of leader is he? And after a while, they kind of accepted me into the platoon. And it's just like being part of a family.

CARROLL: You know, we talk so much about family, and on holidays like today, you guys obviously cannot be with family, but you're with each other. How does that help?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, it helps because, you know, we're here together, thick and thin. You know, we go through the toughest of times, but, you know, we always pull each other together.

You know, in times like today, especially on the Fourth of July, we can reflect and think about the moments we had back home and the moments we're getting ready to have when we go back home.

CARROLL: Would you agree with that? Would you agree?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Jason. Like you had seen earlier today, we've just been hanging out as one big family, had a quick poker game going on, and everybody getting nice haircuts.

CARROLL: Yes, you cleaned up in that poker game.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it's just good to have all these guys around with us, and I can't say enough about them.

CARROLL: Very quickly, I want to give everyone a chance to say something.

So, first, I'm going to start with Lieutenant George Cain (ph). I want to give you an opportunity to speak to your family back in Seattle. Here's your chance to give them a shout out.

LT. GEORGE CAIN (ph), U.S. ARMY: Sure.

Everyone back home, mom, dad, my brother, Will, my sister, Sarah -- and you saw my family and friends in Seattle; Houston, Texas; St. Louis --

CARROLL: All right.

Also a shout out? I know you got an earlier one, but let's do it again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My wife, Cheryl, my daughters Milani (ph) and Arianna (ph), back in Fort Campbell. Hello. I love you. Can't wait to see you. Also to my sister, Amy, and my mother and brother, Robert, in California.

CARROLL: And I know your wife is already here, so you don't have to give a shout out to her, but you can if you want.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd just like to say hi to my family back home, Adrian (ph), Minerva Cook (ph) Cathy (INAUDIBLE), and my aunt and my cousin, Kimberly and Jessica Escovel (ph).

I love all of you all. Can't wait to see you.

CARROLL: All right. I wish we could give all the guys back here an opportunity to speak to their families, but if any of you out there are watching, you see a familiar face, they're here right now, they're safe, they're doing a great job.

And Happy Fourth of July to all.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: We wish them the very best, those guys who are over there in Afghanistan.

Thank you for your service, and a happy Fourth of July.

We are watching the Casey Anthony trial. The jurors will go back into the courtroom momentarily to receive instructions, what will happen next, before they begin their deliberations. We're going to have more on that right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MALVEAUX: It's the annual Fourth of July tradition. It makes you sick to your stomach, but you just can't turn away.

This is a live picture to the scene right now. Thousands of people are at Brooklyn's Coney Island to watch Nathan's hot dog eating contest.

It is the Super Bowl of competitive eating. It has been going on for more than 90 years. Just shove down as many hot dogs as you can in 10 minutes, and try to keep them down. It's crazy.

Well, as revolting as it gets, this contest is a marketing gold mine for Nathan's.

Our Allan Chernoff, he's got more on why this is good business.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN SR. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You're watching all-American marketing magic. Nathan's hot dog eating contest is a bonanza for the fast food company. As the eaters have expanded their gastric capabilities, the event's popularity has soared, and so have sales of Nathan's hot dogs, piling up seven years in a row to 453 million last year.

WAYNE NORBITZ, PRESIDENT, NATHAN'S FAMOUS: This is one of the greatest marketing stunts ever put forth in the United States.

CHERNOFF: It's a natural for Nathan's, which first opened at the fun- filled amusement park 96 years ago. In the late 1970s, the contest was just another Coney Island sideshow, fought off by PR stuntman Max Rosey. Max's proteges, George Shea and his brother, Rich, are the marketing men who have brought competitive eating into the modern era.

They've created a phenomenon like introducing the coveted mustard yellow championship belt, having ESPN cover the event, and promoting the eaters as professional athletes.

RICH SHEA, MAJOR LEAGUE EATING: It's absolutely a sport, and it has all the tenants of sports, and these guys are athletes for sure.

CHERNOFF: This year's stunt, building a new rivalry between the U.S. and China, by flying Chinese eaters to Coney Island just when Nathan's happens to be embarking on a major expansion in China.

GEORGE SHEA, MAJOR LEAGUE EATING: If they take the belt, they're going to be eating our lunch literally.

CHERNOFF: The media eats it up, and not just in Coney Island. The Sheas have qualifying competitions across the country and sponsors for other eating events, chicken wings, oysters, hamburgers, all part of what they call Major League Eating.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Allan Chernoff is live on the boardwalk at Coney Island. Allan, what is going on? What are people -- why are they there? I mean, what is this fascination behind how many hot dogs you can eat?

CHERNOFF: Suzanne, first, I'll tell you, right now, they're introducing the female competitors, and there are literally thousands and thousands of people all about here watching this competition.

Hot dogs, Coney Island, July 4th, it doesn't get more American than this. This is pure Americana here.

And add in the fascination with the competition: man versus dog, and today, women versus dogs. People doing what appears to be the impossible. That's why there are so many eyeballs here right now.

MALVEAUX: All right, Allan. This is -- the tension must be building here, but we know Joey Chestnut, right, he had his record of 68 hot dogs he ate last go-around.

Do they think he's going to break that record?

CHERNOFF: Well, Joey did 68 two years ago. Last year, he was very disappointed to do only 54. And by the way, it's hot dogs and buns.

The weather is pretty good. It's not too hot here. Yesterday was -- last year was a scorcher, so that's a positive.

He's pumped up. I think he's certainly going to beat what he did last year. The question is, can he top 68? Very tough. I don't know, Suzanne. That's one of the big questions hanging over this crowd right now.

MALVEAUX: Yes. And Allan, what about the former champ, Kobayashi? Where is he?

CHERNOFF: Exactly. Kobayashi had a contract dispute with Major League Eating. He is out of here. He's actually in Manhattan eating on his own at 12:00 noon. While the competitors are eating here, he'll be eating in Manhattan.

The problem for Joey Chestnut is that he won't have Kobayashi face to face, and he's told me he needs to be pushed. He needs that competition. That may be the reason that Joey Chestnut cannot set a new world record today. Let's see if he can.

MALVEAUX: You let us know, Allan, how that all goes down. All right. Thanks, Allan. Have a couple of dogs for us, too, while you're at it.

Now, to win the contest last year, Joey Chestnut chowed down 54 hot dogs. He has got the all-time record of 68, as Allan mentioned. But you have got to wonder sometimes, OK, what's even inside a hot dog? What are they even made from?

Our Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen, here to help pick it all apart.

And I don't even understand how your body can take all of that, right, when they say 68 dogs? How is that even possible? And the bun.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And you expect these people to be huge, right?

MALVEAUX: Right.

COHEN: And they're not.

MALVEAUX: They're real tiny.

COHEN: Yes, they're little tiny people.

So, you know what? Some scientists wondered about this, too, and in 2007 they actually did a study.

MALVEAUX: Oh, they did?

COHEN: They studied these people to see how they managed to do this, and what they found is they had a strict training regiment like an athlete. So they would guzzle, like, huge amounts of water or huge amounts of cabbage, and that would turn their stomachs into -- I'm going to quote from the study -- an enormous flaccid sack.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: That doesn't sound very attractive, actually. Trying to avoid the enormous --

COHEN: Right. Most people are trying to avoid that. Right.

MALVEAUX: How many calories do you think we're talking about here?

COHEN: All right. We are going to do the anatomy of a hot dog right now.

So, when Joey Chestnut broke that record and he consumed -- what was it, 68 hot dogs with the buns?

MALVEAUX: Right.

COHEN: All right. That was 20,196 calories. I mean, I can't even -- it's hard to even fathom that all in one sitting. Or, in that was 247 teaspoons of oil and 20 teaspoons of salt.

So you can see, this is not exactly a nutritional bonanza. Do not try this at home. That's a lot.

MALVEAUX: I must have one today.

COHEN: One.

MALVEAUX: Is it safe for them to do this?

COHEN: Well, you know, it's interesting. The doctors who wrote that study in 2007 said they were concerned that these people might get something called gastroparesis, which is where the stomach stops being so good at emptying.

MALVEAUX: Yes, no kidding.

COHEN: Yes. So they said they were worried about that. And one delegate of the American Medical Association house of delegates, at their last big meeting, put forth a proposal saying we should declare this unhealthy. We should declare this a bad thing. But it didn't actually pass.

MALVEAUX: It didn't pass.

COHEN: It didn't pass.

MALVEAUX: So hot dog, it continues. The binge continues.

COHEN: Right. But the AMA has not, you know, put its fist down yet.

MALVEAUX: OK. Have a lovely barbecue, Elizabeth.

COHEN: Oh, thank you. It makes me want to have hot dogs.

MALVEAUX: All right.

We want to go back to the Casey Anthony trial. We understand that the judge is giving the jury instructions before deliberations. Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

PERRY: -- false information to a law enforcement officer.

Murder in the first degree includes the letter crimes of murder in the second degree, man slaughter, and third-degree felony murder, all of which are unlawful. A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing, and deciding if the killing was murder in the first degree, or was murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, or third-degree felony murder, or whether the killing was excusable or resulting from justifiable use of deadly force.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. The killing of a human being is excusable and, therefore, lawful under any one of the following three circumstances.

One, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual, ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent. Or, two, when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation. Or three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.

I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before Casey Marie Anthony may be found guilty of murder in the first degree, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer or any lesser included crime.

Murder in the first degree. There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first-degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

In order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder.

While you must always agree that the state has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based upon premeditated murder or felony murder as I shall not define those terms.

To prove the crime of first degree premeditated murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

Two, the death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.

Three, there was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony -- an act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. Killing with premeditation is killing of the consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing.

The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intend to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It would be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

First degree felony murder -- to prove the crime of first degree felony murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

Two, the death occurred as the consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of aggravated child abuse or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempt to go commit aggravated child abuse. Three, Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.

In order to convict of first degree felony murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.

To prove the crime of aggravated child abuse, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Casey Marie Anthony knowingly and willfully committed child abuse upon Caylee Marie Anthony and in doing so caused great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement.

Two, Caylee Marie Anthony was under the age of 18 years.

Willfully means intentionally, knowingly and purposefully.

Child abuse means the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child or an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child, or active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

Aggravated manslaughter of a child -- to prove the crime of aggravated manslaughter of a child, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Casey Marie -- Caylee Marie Anthony is dead. Two, Casey Marie Anthony's act or acts call causes the death of Caylee Marie Anthony or the death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define culpable negligence for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others. If there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intent to harm, that violence is negligence.

But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care towards others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effect or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of the conscious indifference to the consequences or which shows a wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

Negligent act or mission must have been committed with other disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

If you find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child, you must then determine whether the state has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver.

Child means any person under the age of 18 years.

Caregiver means a parent, adult household member or other person responsible for a child's welfare.

Neglect of a child means a caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with care, supervision and services necessary to maintain a child's physical and mental health, including but not limited to food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential to the well being of a child.

Repeated conduct for a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in or could reasonably be expected to result in a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect.

False information to a law enforcement officer -- to prove the crime of false information to a law enforcement officer, the state must prove the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Yuri Melich was conducting a missing person's investigation.

Two, Yuri Melich was a law enforcement officer.

Three, Casey Marie Anthony knew that Yuri Melich was a law enforcement officer.

Four, Casey Marie Anthony knowingly and willfully gave false information to Yuri Melich.

Five, Casey Marie Anthony intended to mislead Yuri Melich or impede investigation.

Willfully means intentionally, knowingly and purposefully.

In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the main crimes of which she is accused, there may be evidence that she committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime.

Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crimes.

The lesser crimes indicated in the definition of first degree murder or second degree murder, manslaughter or third degree murder.

The lesser crime indicated in the definition of aggravated child abuse is child abuse.

Second degree murder -- to prove the crime was second degree murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

Two, the death was caused by the criminal acts of Casey Marie Anthony.

Three, there was an unlawful killing Caylee Marie Anthony by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrated a depraved mind without regard for human life. An act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. An act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrated in a depraved mind if it is an act or series of acts that, one, a person of ordinary judgment should know is reasonably to do kill or do serious bodily harm to another; and, two, is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent; and, three, is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In order to convict that the crime was second degree murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

Manslaughter, to prove the crime of manslaughter, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

Two, Casey Marie Anthony's act or acts caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony or the death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter is the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide. The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while attempting, resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.

The killing of a human being is excusable and, therefore, lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. One, when the killing is committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usually ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent; or, two, when the killing occurred by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation; or, three, when the killing is committed by accident or misfortune resulting from sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used in the killing, is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.

In order to convict a manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not justified or excusable or which caused death.

I will now define culpable negligence for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others. If there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care towards others. In order to negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects or such an entire want of care as to raise the presumption of the conscious indifference to the consequences or which shows wantonness or recklessness or gross careless disregard to the safety and welfare of the public or such an indifference to the rights of others as equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

Negligent act or omission must have been committed with other disregard for the safety of others.

Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

To prove the crime of third degree felony murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

Two, the death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit child abuse. Or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit child abuse.

Three, Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.

It is not necessary for the state to prove the killing was perpetrated with the design to effect death.

Child abuse means intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child or an emotional or an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child when the person knowingly or willfully abuses the child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to a child.

Willfully means intentionally, knowingly and purposely.

In order to prove that the defendant attempted to commit a crime of child abuse, the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Casey Marie Anthony did some act towards committing the crime of child abuse that went beyond just thinking or talking about it.

Two, she would have committed the crime except that someone prevented her from committing the crime of child abuse or she failed.

It is not an attempt to commit child abuse if the defendant abandon her attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission in the circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of a criminal purpose.

Child abuse -- to prove the crime of child abuse, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, Casey Marie Anthony intentionally inflicted physical or mental injury upon Caylee Marie Anthony or committed an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to Caylee Marie Anthony.

Two, the victim was under the age of 18 years.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the state has the burden of proving the crime of which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the purpose who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or to prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used, you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, an imaginary or false doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

On the other hand after considering, comparing, and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction it is one which is not stable, but one which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt, and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.

If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

It is up to you to decide whatever evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said.

Some things you should consider are: Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney's questions? Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? Has the witness been offered or received any money, or received treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify? Has any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness' testimony? Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the statement he or she gave in court?

You may rely on your own conclusions about the witness.

A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any of the parts of the testimony of any witness.

When the evidence concerning K-9 searches. It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable and you should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict.

You may find some of the evidence more reliable or less reliable than others.

Some things you should consider in evaluating K-9 searches are:

One, the K-9's training and certification records including the explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification.

Two, the field performance records, including any unverified alerts.

Three, the experience and training of the officer handling the K-9 as well any other objective evidence known to the officer about the K-9's reliability.

You may rely upon your own conclusions about this type of evidence. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony.

Expert witnesses like other witnesses with one exception. The law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. However, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe he or she could be an expert. Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.

The Constitution requires the state to prove his accusations against the defendant. It is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. Nor is the defendant required to prove her innocence. It is up to the state to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence.

The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by her decision. No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case.

Statements claim to have been made by the defendant outside of court has been placed before you. Such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. Therefore you must determine from the evidence that the defendant's alleged statements were knowingly, voluntarily and freely made.

In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances including but not limited to: one, whenever the defendant made the statement, she had been threatened in order to get her to make it; and two, whether anybody had promised anything in order to get her to make it.

If you conclude that the defendant's out-of-court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it.

These are some general rules that apply to your discussions. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions.

If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of injustice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All much us are dependent upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

This case must not be -- this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of witnesses and have seen in the forms of exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or angry at anyone.

Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accord with the law.

Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, and that is each juror must agree to the same verdict. It's entirely improper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredit by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.

Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, values or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions.