The Orlando Sentinel has a great reference for who is on the Casey Anthony jury, entitled "Bios of the Casey Anthony Jury."
It's a slide show, and appears to be a transcription of notes taken by the Sentinel's reporter during jury selection. Their identities are being protected until they are released from jury duty - but once they're released, we'll know lots about them. Remember the OJ Trial?
6/09/2011
6/08/2011
Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence
Can we trust circumstantial evidence? Sure we can. And we do. Rather than use my own words to explain why, I'll leave it to the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case, Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121, 140, 99 L. Ed. 150, 75 S. Ct. 127 (1954):
For Those That Distrust Circumstantial Evidence, Direct Evidence Isn't That Reliable
There are those that may argue that direct evidence, especially in a murder case, should be the only evidence used to convict. However, in our imperfect world there usually isn't much direct evidence in most crimes -- and the direct evidence that may be had might not be the most reliable.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for example - and you can't get more direct that a witness glaring at a defense table, pointing his finger and crying out, "he did it!"
Meanwhile, the slow and tedious introduction of pieces of circumstantial evidence, as time consuming as it might be, can provide a clear picture of the truth - I like to think of it as a "Lite-Brite" of sorts. Remember Lite-Brites? They were toys were white lights were hidden by thick black paper on a screen, and you had oodles of plastic buttons, or pegs, that you pushed one at a time into that black nothingness until an image emerged.
Perhaps those that distrust circumstantial evidence are more concerned, really, with the burden of proof that the State in a criminal case must meet in order to prove their case. Twelve jurors must use what they have (from Holland, their "experience with people and events") and determine if there is any reasonable doubt left that the defendant did the crime alleged.
Doubt can remain. It just cannot be a reasonable doubt. And logical reasoning can occur in that jury room. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you can infer it's a duck.
Some Believe That Circumstantial Evidence is More Reliable That Direct Evidence
Note: In fact, there are those in the criminal arena that find circumstantial evidence to be more reliable than direct evidence (especially when we're talking eyewitnesses). If you are interested in learning more on that issue, I've downloaded Professor Heller's excellent article on this subject, "The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence," 105 Michigan Law Review (2006) at Google Docs.
The University of Michigan Law School is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and coming from UT Law, another top tier law school, maybe I should have found a UT Law Review article -- but I like Heller's article here and I think you will, too.
Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.
For Those That Distrust Circumstantial Evidence, Direct Evidence Isn't That Reliable
There are those that may argue that direct evidence, especially in a murder case, should be the only evidence used to convict. However, in our imperfect world there usually isn't much direct evidence in most crimes -- and the direct evidence that may be had might not be the most reliable.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for example - and you can't get more direct that a witness glaring at a defense table, pointing his finger and crying out, "he did it!"
Meanwhile, the slow and tedious introduction of pieces of circumstantial evidence, as time consuming as it might be, can provide a clear picture of the truth - I like to think of it as a "Lite-Brite" of sorts. Remember Lite-Brites? They were toys were white lights were hidden by thick black paper on a screen, and you had oodles of plastic buttons, or pegs, that you pushed one at a time into that black nothingness until an image emerged.
Perhaps those that distrust circumstantial evidence are more concerned, really, with the burden of proof that the State in a criminal case must meet in order to prove their case. Twelve jurors must use what they have (from Holland, their "experience with people and events") and determine if there is any reasonable doubt left that the defendant did the crime alleged.
Doubt can remain. It just cannot be a reasonable doubt. And logical reasoning can occur in that jury room. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you can infer it's a duck.
Some Believe That Circumstantial Evidence is More Reliable That Direct Evidence
Note: In fact, there are those in the criminal arena that find circumstantial evidence to be more reliable than direct evidence (especially when we're talking eyewitnesses). If you are interested in learning more on that issue, I've downloaded Professor Heller's excellent article on this subject, "The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence," 105 Michigan Law Review (2006) at Google Docs.
The University of Michigan Law School is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and coming from UT Law, another top tier law school, maybe I should have found a UT Law Review article -- but I like Heller's article here and I think you will, too.
Casey Anthony Trial Defense Costs - How Much the State of Florida Has to Pay
Judge Perry, in a public hearing last year, approved the court clerk's determination that Casey Anthony was legally indigent. By being declared "indigent" under the law, Casey would become eligible for her legal expenses to be paid by the State of Florida. However, the defense did not request that her attorneys' fees be paid out of the state's pocket according to the media sources I reviewed today. (Good summary provided by CBS News.)
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
The Psychology of Casey Anthony - I've Invited a Psychologist to Post
I want to understand what is going on with Casey Anthony and her family, and I know that several readers have written, voicing similar interests. So, I've sent an invitation to an expert in narcissism and asked for a guest post.
Hopefully, we'll have that input by Friday evening - if not, I'll send out another invite to an expert in narcissism or sociopathy, etc. and (fingers crossed) either way, we'll have an expert giving us details on this issue.
Personally, I pondered on this issue a couple of years back, as fodder for character studies in my personal writing and I posted about this at my fiction writing blog (here).
For me, I don't believe that Casey can be considered without looking at her family, particularly her mother. There's something sad and bad about their relationship - but I'll wait to hear what the psychologist has to reveal about all this.
Reading one reader's comment here - Anonymous on June 5th to Who Is Jose Baez? post - I think she may know more than the rest of us about the family dynamic in that house, e.g., that Casey became a liar as a means of escaping the overwhelming power and control of her mother. That makes sense to me.
One other thing: I wish that I could look at Casey Anthony and consider the possibility of a mother killing her child as a bizarre, unique instance - but I can't. One of the biggest shocks that I had when I worked the local CPS Docket was the parents, particularly the mothers. There were some that were blind to their children, they did not care. I learned that a maternal instinct is not a given in humans. Some chose drugs, true. Some, however, just did not love those babies - and "blind" is the closest I can get right now to describing their lack of perception.
Hopefully, we'll have that input by Friday evening - if not, I'll send out another invite to an expert in narcissism or sociopathy, etc. and (fingers crossed) either way, we'll have an expert giving us details on this issue.
Personally, I pondered on this issue a couple of years back, as fodder for character studies in my personal writing and I posted about this at my fiction writing blog (here).
For me, I don't believe that Casey can be considered without looking at her family, particularly her mother. There's something sad and bad about their relationship - but I'll wait to hear what the psychologist has to reveal about all this.
Reading one reader's comment here - Anonymous on June 5th to Who Is Jose Baez? post - I think she may know more than the rest of us about the family dynamic in that house, e.g., that Casey became a liar as a means of escaping the overwhelming power and control of her mother. That makes sense to me.
One other thing: I wish that I could look at Casey Anthony and consider the possibility of a mother killing her child as a bizarre, unique instance - but I can't. One of the biggest shocks that I had when I worked the local CPS Docket was the parents, particularly the mothers. There were some that were blind to their children, they did not care. I learned that a maternal instinct is not a given in humans. Some chose drugs, true. Some, however, just did not love those babies - and "blind" is the closest I can get right now to describing their lack of perception.
6/04/2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Here is What the State Has To Do To Prove Its Case Under Florida Law
In the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution must provide the jury with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes for which she was charged were indeed committed by defendant Casey Anthony. I'm providing two helpful links here for those wanting to follow along with the trial as the state puts on its case.
What Casey Anthony Has Been Charged With - First Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
From a CNN article, I found a listing of the grand jury indictment's seven counts: Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four (4) counts of providing false information to police. First degree murder in Florida carries the possibility of the death penalty (see below).
(By the way, when I found this article I re-read something that I had forgot: Casey was arrested after she switched cars under an overpass shortly after the indictment came down - wow. Forgot all about that one.)
Florida Prosecutors Burden: What They Must Prove With Admitted Evidence To Win Their Case
The Florida Supreme Court's website includes the current jury instructions that are to be used in Florida criminal trials. From these instructions you can find each prong of the case, or element of the crime, that must be shown by the reasonable doubt standard. Just surf through.
"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.
"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
"1. (Victim) is dead. (State will have to put in evidence that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.)
"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). (State will have to put in evidence that Casey caused Caylee's death and this was by a criminal act.)
"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). (State will have to put in evidence that this was premeditated.)
"Definitions.
"An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after 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 intent 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 will 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. "
What are jury instructions?
Jury instructions take the actual statutes and place them into a format for the jury to use in their deliberations, as they assess the evidence presented to them. There is a charge conference between the lawyers and the judge (at least that's what we do here in Texas), where the jury instructions are debated by the lawyers and after arguments, finalized by the judge. The charge will include the instuctions as well as question like you hear on Law n Order all the time: "how do you find" type of thing.
For example, here is the Florida statute for murder which can result in a life sentence or the death penalty which you can see dovetailed into the Jury Instructions for Homicide (above):
Florida Statutes 782.04
Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2010-121.
What Casey Anthony Has Been Charged With - First Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
From a CNN article, I found a listing of the grand jury indictment's seven counts: Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four (4) counts of providing false information to police. First degree murder in Florida carries the possibility of the death penalty (see below).
(By the way, when I found this article I re-read something that I had forgot: Casey was arrested after she switched cars under an overpass shortly after the indictment came down - wow. Forgot all about that one.)
Florida Prosecutors Burden: What They Must Prove With Admitted Evidence To Win Their Case
The Florida Supreme Court's website includes the current jury instructions that are to be used in Florida criminal trials. From these instructions you can find each prong of the case, or element of the crime, that must be shown by the reasonable doubt standard. Just surf through.
- You can read the section under Homicide and get an idea of the prosecution's duty here, it's in somewhat of an outline format but easy enough for following along with the current proceedings.
- Search the Florida Supreme Court's instructions to find First Degree Murder as well as Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: Florida Supreme Court - Jury Instructions.
"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.
"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
"1. (Victim) is dead. (State will have to put in evidence that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.)
"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). (State will have to put in evidence that Casey caused Caylee's death and this was by a criminal act.)
"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). (State will have to put in evidence that this was premeditated.)
"Definitions.
"An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after 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 intent 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 will 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. "
What are jury instructions?
Jury instructions take the actual statutes and place them into a format for the jury to use in their deliberations, as they assess the evidence presented to them. There is a charge conference between the lawyers and the judge (at least that's what we do here in Texas), where the jury instructions are debated by the lawyers and after arguments, finalized by the judge. The charge will include the instuctions as well as question like you hear on Law n Order all the time: "how do you find" type of thing.
For example, here is the Florida statute for murder which can result in a life sentence or the death penalty which you can see dovetailed into the Jury Instructions for Homicide (above):
Florida Statutes 782.04
Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment. (emphasis added)
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2010-121.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)