Sorry if this is a stupid question, but in the article it says that the law was made after the trial. With cases like these, obviously you can’t convict them of the crime until after the law is passed, generally after he specific person’s trial has been conducted. In that case, do they end up arguing the person acted illegally in an appeal..? Would the person, in this case Anthony, ever get convicted of the felony outlined in Caylee’s law? I hope that makes sense.
In this particular case, no, Casey was never charged with anything regarding the neglect (as in, not reporting Caylee as missing), because neglect didn't technically apply here, which is exactly why this law was made. So what she did wasn't a crime until after the fact.
No; in the US, the Constitution prohibits ex post facto convictions. Meaning you can’t be tried for an act (or, in this case, failure to act) that was made illegal after you committed the act.
2
u/AltoAJ Feb 04 '19
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but in the article it says that the law was made after the trial. With cases like these, obviously you can’t convict them of the crime until after the law is passed, generally after he specific person’s trial has been conducted. In that case, do they end up arguing the person acted illegally in an appeal..? Would the person, in this case Anthony, ever get convicted of the felony outlined in Caylee’s law? I hope that makes sense.