Verdict in Anthony Trial

[ruxCYtable]

That about tells it all. Jurors can't use common sense. She is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. The defense was great and the prosecution was weak. She clearly had something to do with the death, but could not been proven.

Did you watch the trial? Your statements seem to indicate that you did not. Just about everyone believes just the opposite of what you said: The defense was a bunch of bungling idiots. Jose Baez has been described by many as incompetent.

The prosecution, on the other hand, did the best job they could do to build a case with a minimal amount of physical evidence and by most accounts their performance was outstanding. The case was won/lost by the lack of physical evidence, not by any oustanding defense lawyering.

Regarding your comments on common sense, the judge SPECIFICALLY STATED the jury could use their common sense if they had an abiding conviction of guilt, which clearly they did not.

I think the jury got it wrong. But I also am glad we live in a society where the justice system favors the defense. I hope that if I am ever falsely accused of something, I am treated with a presumption of innocence. So, even though I disagree with the verdict (and I listened to almost every minute of the trial via streaming coverage), I also agree with those who say the justice system worked in this trial.

 

[chuckd4735]

What charge should they have stopped at? The jury doesn't think she had anything to do with the killing of the kid so it wouldn't have mattered what they did. I think if you submit to the fact that she was guilty of murder then premeditation is pretty easy to prove in this case. Of course, the DA didn't prove it so we will never know.

I am also still waiting on what would have been sufficient evidence from this case.

If there was a known cause of death, this would have been an easy case to prosecute.

There was enough evidence, IMO, to get some sort of conviction. The case was just handled poorly from the start. The defense did a good job of steering the jury away from the facts of the case multiple times, and the prosecution did a horrid job of getting it back on track. Doubt was present at the end.

 

[chuckd4735]

Did you watch the trial? Your statements seem to indicate that you did not. Just about everyone believes just the opposite of what you said: The defense was a bunch of bungling idiots. Jose Baez has been described by many as incompetent.

The prosecution, on the other hand, did the best job they could do to build a case with a minimal amount of physical evidence and by most accounts their performance was outstanding. The case was won/lost by the lack of physical evidence, not by any oustanding defense lawyering.

Regarding your comments on common sense, the judge SPECIFICALLY STATED the jury could use their common sense if they had an abiding conviction of guilt, which clearly they did not.

I think the jury got it wrong. But I also am glad we live in a society where the justice system favors the defense. I hope that if I am ever falsely accused of something, I am treated with a presumption of innocence. So, even though I disagree with the verdict (and I listened to almost every minute of the trial via streaming coverage), I also agree with those who say the justice system worked in this trial.

Trying for 1st degree murder with a "minimal amount of physical evidence" is very poor prosecution...

 

[Mr Janny]

This is just more nonsense speculation on this guys part. He is giving an educated guess but there is no way for him to actually know with 100% certainty what Casey's motive was for murdering her child. All one has to do is look at Casey's MO to see a motive. She likes to party, she likes to sleep around with a bunch of guys, she was always out doing something with her friends.... having a small child isn't exactly going to make the lifestyle that she chose to lead easy. IMO this guy needs to think about this again. There are plenty of cases of murder in which the murderer killed a girlfriend/boyfriend, a spouse, etc... because that person was holding them back from the life they wanted, holding them back from opportunities to be with other women/men, holding them back financially, etc.... For God's sake look at Casey Anthony... that chick had about 47 ex boyfriends and sexual partners testify during her trial. Does she sound like the type of person that wants to be tied down in life by anything or anybody? Hell no.

Sounds like that's what the jury thought about the prosecution's case, as well.

 

[Cy4Patriots]

Did you watch the trial? Your statements seem to indicate that you did not. Just about everyone believes just the opposite of what you said: The defense was a bunch of bungling idiots. Jose Baez has been described by many as incompetent.

The prosecution, on the other hand, did the best job they could do to build a case with a minimal amount of physical evidence and by most accounts their performance was outstanding. The case was won/lost by the lack of physical evidence, not by any oustanding defense lawyering.

Regarding your comments on common sense, the judge SPECIFICALLY STATED the jury could use their common sense if they had an abiding conviction of guilt, which clearly they did not.

I think the jury got it wrong. But I also am glad we live in a society where the justice system favors the defense. I hope that if I am ever falsely accused of something, I am treated with a presumption of innocence. So, even though I disagree with the verdict (and I listened to almost every minute of the trial via streaming coverage), I also agree with those who say the justice system worked in this trial.

Are you serious? You're kidding right. Hang on.

 

[Clonefan32]

What charge should they have stopped at? The jury doesn't think she had anything to do with the killing of the kid so it wouldn't have mattered what they did. I think if you submit to the fact that she was guilty of murder then premeditation is pretty easy to prove in this case. Of course, the DA didn't prove it so we will never know.

I am also still waiting on what would have been sufficient evidence from this case.

I think you are missing the point here a little bit. There is tons of evidence out there, and I am sure there is enough evidence to convict her of some other crimes. The prosecution shot for the fences, and in order to get capital murder they had to prove not only that she killed her, but she do so intentionally with malice, aforethought, etc. What they presented did nothing to prove such intent, they had some circumstantial evidence that could have been consistent with an intentional murder, but also could have been consistant with any of a number of other theories that didn't involve the required intent.

Sufficient evidence would have been eye-witnesses, a confession, harder evidence linking her to the cause of death (aka fingerprint, DNA) or more concrete evidence discrediting the defense's theory of the crime. When all they had as to intent was that she liked to party and all their evidence could have been consistant with an accidental killing, cover up or any of a number of other things, they had no chance. They had a theory, the defense had a thoery. They had expert witnesses, the defense had expert witnesses. They had circumstantial evidence linking Casey to at least the cover up of the crime, and the defense had circumstantial evidence aiding their theory of the crime. Luckily, in our justice system when there are questions unanswered in a case we err on the side of caution and would rather set a guilty person free than send an innocent person (as to the crime charged at least) free.

It never should have been charged as Murder 1, and they took the risk and they are now reaping the consequences.

 

[Mr Janny]

What charge should they have stopped at? The jury doesn't think she had anything to do with the killing of the kid so it wouldn't have mattered what they did. I think if you submit to the fact that she was guilty of murder then premeditation is pretty easy to prove in this case. Of course, the DA didn't prove it so we will never know.

I am also still waiting on what would have been sufficient evidence from this case.

At this point, we don't know this. A juror can be 90% convinced that a person is guilty, but still not vote that way. The fact that all 12 jurors agreed and they came back so quickly indicates that this was not hard for them to decide. That, in itself, is a condemnation of the prosecution.

 

[Clonefan32]

Trying for 1st degree murder with a "minimal amount of physical evidence" is very poor prosecution...

Bingo. You can't create evidence and they should have never gone for Murder 1 with what they had. No one is suggesting they didn't work their ***** of at trial, and I would go so far to say that the defense attorney did a mediocre job, but in the end the facts and evidence are what they are and there was nothing to prove Murder 1.

I read somewhere that there had been two women put to death in Florida and both were serial killers. That says something about the slew of evidence you need to get a capital murder conviction, and also shows how absurd it was to go for capital murder.

 

[chuckd4735]

I think you are missing the point here a little bit. There is tons of evidence out there, and I am sure there is enough evidence to convict her of some other crimes. The prosecution shot for the fences, and in order to get capital murder they had to prove not only that she killed her, but she do so intentionally with malice, aforethought, etc. What they presented did nothing to prove such intent, they had some circumstantial evidence that could have been consistent with an intentional murder, but also could have been consistant with any of a number of other theories that didn't involve the required intent.

Sufficient evidence would have been eye-witnesses, a confession, harder evidence linking her to the cause of death (aka fingerprint, DNA) or more concrete evidence discrediting the defense's theory of the crime. When all they had as to intent was that she liked to party and all their evidence could have been consistant with an accidental killing, cover up or any of a number of other things, they had no chance. They had a theory, the defense had a thoery. They had expert witnesses, the defense had expert witnesses. They had circumstantial evidence linking Casey to at least the cover up of the crime, and the defense had circumstantial evidence aiding their theory of the crime. Luckily, in our justice system when there are questions unanswered in a case we err on the side of caution and would rather set a guilty person free than send an innocent person (as to the crime charged at least) free.

It never should have been charged as Murder 1, and they took the risk and they are now reaping the consequences.

This is 100% correct IMO. I may use it on a few Facebook arguments I have been getting into

 

[Cyclonestate78]

All good questions.

Doesn't prove anything.

Our society is continually growing weaker all of the time. People just don't have the stomach to make tough choices anymore. They are too afraid of being wrong, they are too afraid of the scrutiny that it would create, they are too afraid of the potential consequences of their decision, etc... They want the decision to be easy for them.

Put 12 of them on a jury in a murder trial where a conviction will ultimately lead to the execution of the defendant and this is exactly what you get. They don't want to make that choice. They look for the easy way out to avoid making that tough choice. They want finger prints, they want hair and fiber, they want blood, they want saliva, they want foot prints next to the body, they want the murder weapon, they want eye witnesses, they want video evidence, and they want a confession... because without that they could put an innocent person to death and they just couldn't live with themselves.

It doesn't matter if the amount of circumstantial evidence is as tall as Mt. Everest and it all points directly at the defendant. If they don't have "CSI" worthy evidence that is an absolute lock then they simply won't have the guts to convict.

 

[Cy4Patriots]

Did you watch the trial? Your statements seem to indicate that you did not. Just about everyone believes just the opposite of what you said: The defense was a bunch of bungling idiots. Jose Baez has been described by many as incompetent.

The prosecution, on the other hand, did the best job they could do to build a case with a minimal amount of physical evidence and by most accounts their performance was outstanding. The case was won/lost by the lack of physical evidence, not by any oustanding defense lawyering.

Regarding your comments on common sense, the judge SPECIFICALLY STATED the jury could use their common sense if they had an abiding conviction of guilt, which clearly they did not.

I think the jury got it wrong. But I also am glad we live in a society where the justice system favors the defense. I hope that if I am ever falsely accused of something, I am treated with a presumption of innocence. So, even though I disagree with the verdict (and I listened to almost every minute of the trial via streaming coverage), I also agree with those who say the justice system worked in this trial.

Even if it can be proven she was a participant in the coverup\disposal, it does not prove she killed Caylee. And you dont just move down a charge if you think someone is guilty of a greater charge but have reasonable doubt on that one. If they dont believe there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she killed Caylee, neither manslaughter or murder is appropriate.

The jury isnt supposed to 'connect the dots'. They are supposed to rule whether the evidence shown provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They believe the evidence does not show proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and made their verdict accordingly.

A lot of people seem upset by this verdict. Which I can't deny, I thought she did it. Instead of blasting states and the people that live in them though, I find this as a bit of proof that our system works, not that it's broken. I had to listen to a lady at work go on and on today about what a ****** country we live in that would let a woman like this go and how stupid we've become as Americans. I didn't have the heart to tell her she's the one being stupid here. The jury did what they were supposed to do. They saw doubt and did not convict her. I really believe that the prosecution blew it here. They were probably believing what they heard on Nancy Grace as well. This is why we have juries.

Do I think Casey is guilty? As hell. However, I don't think the jury got it wrong.


A lot of the "legal experts" are the same "talking heads" that were discussed earlier in the thread. The vast majority of them were prosecutors in their previous career and had rung up Casey as guilty of 1st Degree murder before the trial even started. Listen to any of the defense attorneys and most of them had serious problems with what the prosecution was doing.

They don't even know the cause of death, how could they prove she was murdered?

Just because she was found not guilty, doesn't mean she is innocent. Just means the prosecution couldn't prove she did it.

But, again, all this proves is that she lied to police officers, the exact crimes she was convicted of. I would imagine law enforcement is trained a little better than to just take the word of a suspect and follow on the leads she is giving them. She mislead the cops, but the problem is there are several viable theories as to why she did that. The problem is, there is absolutely nothing linking her to an intentional killing-- they should have never gone for capital murder.

MY problem is that I believe about 90% of prosecution teams out there could have proven this guilt (maybe not 1st degree, but guilty of some responsibility in the death). Orange County handled the whole thing wrong, from the very beginning. I think they got wrapped up in the media spotlight, and tired to show the world how awesome Orange County, Florida is. They were given a hanging curve ball with bases loaded and they grounded into a double play...

If there was a known cause of death, this would have been an easy case to prosecute.

There was enough evidence, IMO, to get some sort of conviction. The case was just handled poorly from the start. The defense did a good job of steering the jury away from the facts of the case multiple times, and the prosecution did a horrid job of getting it back on track. Doubt was present at the end.

I would agree with all of this. Ummm... Jose may be an idiot, but he held his own and came out on top. You could say that he didn't "win" the trial, but rather the prosecution "lost" it. In the end it doesn't matter, Jose did come out ahead. Maybe all the rambling worked.

 

[chuckd4735]

Our society is continually growing weaker all of the time. People just don't have the stomach to make tough choices anymore. They are too afraid of being wrong, they are too afraid of the scrutiny that it would create, they are too afraid of the potential consequences of their decision, etc... They want the decision to be easy for them.

Put 12 of them on a jury in a murder trial where a conviction will ultimately lead to the execution of the defendant and this is exactly what you get. They don't want to make that choice. They look for the easy way out to avoid making that tough choice. They want finger prints, they want hair and fiber, they want blood, they want saliva, they want foot prints next to the body, they want the murder weapon, they want eye witnesses, they want video evidence, and they want a confession... because without that they could put an innocent person to death and they just couldn't live with themselves.

It doesn't matter if the amount of circumstantial evidence is as tall as Mt. Everest and it all points directly at the defendant. If they don't have "CSI" worthy evidence that is an absolute lock then they simply won't have the guts to convict.

IMO, that's a good thing, especially when dealing with life sentences and death. If there is even an ounce of doubt, you have not proven guilt as a prosecution. As a prosecution, you should be gong after charges where you can prove guilt, not charges that will only have circumstantial evidence to back them up.

I think the main problem is that people today view those accused of a crime as guilty, and think its the defenses job to prove their innocence. Thats not how the system is supposed to work, and you learn that in the most basic of American government classes.

The system worked here. Its called "innocent until proven guilty". Casey Anthony was to be viewed as innocent of the crime, and the prosecution had to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed.

 

[Cyclonestate78]

Sounds like that's what the jury thought about the prosecution's case, as well.

I thought the guys assumption was pretty weak. He kept saying that he had 40 years of experience blah blah blah but he obviously didn't know much about the trial and the defendant because the prosecution nailed her motive. She was a slut that only wanted to party and do what she wanted to do. Having a child cramped her style and held her back from what she wanted to do. Notice how the second that child was out of the picture Casey was out partying it up and sleeping around? Yeah.... I think her motive for murder was crystal clear.:yes:

 

[Clonefan32]

Our society is continually growing weaker all of the time. People just don't have the stomach to make tough choices anymore. They are too afraid of being wrong, they are too afraid of the scrutiny that it would create, they are too afraid of the potential consequences of their decision, etc... They want the decision to be easy for them.

Put 12 of them on a jury in a murder trial where a conviction will ultimately lead to the execution of the defendant and this is exactly what you get. They don't want to make that choice. They look for the easy way out to avoid making that tough choice. They want finger prints, they want hair and fiber, they want blood, they want saliva, they want foot prints next to the body, they want the murder weapon, they want eye witnesses, they want video evidence, and they want a confession... because without that they could put an innocent person to death and they just couldn't live with themselves.

It doesn't matter if the amount of circumstantial evidence is as tall as Mt. Everest and it all points directly at the defendant. If they don't have "CSI" worthy evidence that is an absolute lock then they simply won't have the guts to convict.

No, I just think they want hard enough evidence that justifies putting someone to death. Are you seriously telling me that if you were a juror you could justify sending someone to die if you had some doubt in your mind as to their guilt or innocence? I don't think these jurors needed all the "CSI" stuff you're talking about, but thank God they "didn't have the stomach" to send someone to be executed without the State having proven every aspect of this crime. All it would have taken was a few pieces of hard evidence-- of which they had none. Maybe Casey Anthony is a criminal mastermind who managed to cover up all of her tracks, or maybe the lack of hard evidence means that there is none.

There are people out there that "have the stomach" to send people to die without having completely proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and could do so on rebutable circumstantial evidence...but thank God those people weren't the founders of this country.

 

[CloneLawman]

IMO, that's a good thing, especially when dealing with life sentences and death. If there is even an ounce of doubt, you have not proven guilt as a prosecution. As a prosecution, you should be gong after charges where you can prove guilt, not charges that will only have circumstantial evidence to back them up.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the result, let it be clear that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that in order to convict, a juror must lack any doubt whatsoever about any matter in the trial. In Iowa, for example, the uniform criminal jury instructions include the following statement with regard to reasonable doubt:

If, after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence, you are firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt, then you have no reasonable doubt and you should find the defendant guilty.


Again, I am not seeking to argue about the outcome of any particular case.

 

[Psiclone]

Not Guilty, are your ******* kidding me? These jurors should have to go on trial. Our justice system is a joke.

I always find it interesting when people who were not at the trial, did not see/hear the evidence first hand, did not observe the demeanor of the witnesses, seem to conclude that the verdict of the jury, which was there from beginning to end, is wrong and that the system needs to be changed.

So, just exactly should the current system be changed? The system of trial by a jury of peers is the most fair system that has yet been devised. Does is allow for some people who may be guilty to be released? Yes. But, please keep this in mind. A DOJ study which compared the DNA of people charged with sex offenses with evidence at the scene of the crime found that there was a mismatch in 25% of the cases. 25%!!!

This means that way too many people are falsely accused. And, for people who were convicted before the advent of DNA testing and those where there was no physical evidence for comparison, it also means that many innocent people are wrongfully in prison. In my opinion, this includes people who are on death row.

So, if we are going to reform the criminal justice system, how about also making sure that innocent people are not falsely convicted? At a minimum, how about requiring that all police questioning is recorded and that DNA testing is done?

**All opinions expressed are my own and based on over 20 years of experience working as both prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in military, federal and state courts.

 

[Cyclonestate78]

No, I just think they want hard enough evidence that justifies putting someone to death. Are you seriously telling me that if you were a juror you could justify sending someone to die if you had some doubt in your mind as to their guilt or innocence? I don't think these jurors needed all the "CSI" stuff you're talking about, but thank God they "didn't have the stomach" to send someone to be executed without the State having proven every aspect of this crime. All it would have taken was a few pieces of hard evidence-- of which they had none. Maybe Casey Anthony is a criminal mastermind who managed to cover up all of her tracks, or maybe the lack of hard evidence means that there is none.

There are people out there that "have the stomach" to send people to die without having completely proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and could do so on rebutable circumstantial evidence...but thank God those people weren't the founders of this country.

In this particular case, with the evidence presented (circumstantial) and with the actions of the defendant I would have been very confident in deciding to vote guilty on all charges except for 1st degree murder. I would have needed just a bit more to vote guilty on that charge.

 

[Mr Janny]

I always find it interesting when people who were not at the trial, did not see/hear the evidence first hand, did not observe the demeanor of the witnesses, seem to conclude that the verdict of the jury, which was there from beginning to end, is wrong and that the system needs to be changed.

So, just exactly should the current system be changed? The system of trial by a jury of peers is the most fair system that has yet been devised. Does is allow for some people who may be guilty to be released? Yes. But, please keep this in mind. A DOJ study which compared the DNA of people charged with sex offenses with evidence at the scene of the crime found that there was a mismatch in 25% of the cases. 25%!!!

This means that way too many people are falsely accused. And, for people who were convicted before the advent of DNA testing and those where there was no physical evidence for comparison, it also means that many innocent people are wrongfully in prison. In my opinion, this includes people who are on death row.

So, if we are going to reform the criminal justice system, how about also making sure that innocent people are not falsely convicted? At a minimum, how about requiring that all police questioning is recorded and that DNA testing is done?

**All opinions expressed are my own and based on over 20 years of experience working as both prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in military, federal and state courts.

great post. There are a ton of armchair Jack Mccoys running around throwing out their theories on why the jury was right or wrong, but in the end they're no different than the sports fan who thinks he could do a better job than the ref.

 

[Clonefan32]

great post. There are a ton of armchair Jack Mccoys running around throwing out their theories on why the jury was right or wrong, but in the end they're no different than the sports fan who thinks he could do a better job than the ref.

Exactly, but my bigger problem are the legal professionals that are furthering such outrageous theories. Agree with it or not, someone who has studied and practiced the law as much as some of these "experts" have should know the incredible high burden you must overcome to get a Murder 1 conviction, and should know that a theory and some rebuttable circumstantial evidence doesn't get you to that burden. I can see how some are maddened by the verdict, but a legal professional should be able to see what happened here with relative ease and should not perpetuate the anger by saying that the verdict was wrong.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Our society is continually growing weaker all of the time. People just don't have the stomach to make tough choices anymore. They are too afraid of being wrong, they are too afraid of the scrutiny that it would create, they are too afraid of the potential consequences of their decision, etc... They want the decision to be easy for them.

Put 12 of them on a jury in a murder trial where a conviction will ultimately lead to the execution of the defendant and this is exactly what you get. They don't want to make that choice. They look for the easy way out to avoid making that tough choice. They want finger prints, they want hair and fiber, they want blood, they want saliva, they want foot prints next to the body, they want the murder weapon, they want eye witnesses, they want video evidence, and they want a confession... because without that they could put an innocent person to death and they just couldn't live with themselves.

It doesn't matter if the amount of circumstantial evidence is as tall as Mt. Everest and it all points directly at the defendant. If they don't have "CSI" worthy evidence that is an absolute lock then they simply won't have the guts to convict.

Funny that you mention that, considering there's usually a public outrage when it turns out that someone has served 20+ years for a crime that person didn't commit.

You claim that justice wasn't served here (and I tend to agree), but when you say that jurors "aren't afraid to be wrong anymore", in other words, willing to convict someone of capital murder when the evidence just isn't there, that isn't justice either.

When you live in a society where the theory is "innocent until proven guilty", you cannot err on the side of "throw them in jail just in case they actually are guilty".