Casey Anthony Trial

honeychile · #1 07-06-2011, 08:35 PM

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said today that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

The jury's jaw dropping not guilty verdict shocked court observers, but it was also a difficult moment for the panel, Ford said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. No one from the jury was willing to come out and talk to the media in the hours after the verdict.

"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."

Instead of murder, Casey Anthony, 25, was found guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement and could be released from jail as early as Thursday."

I'm not an attorney, but shouldn't they have had a mistrial if they felt that way? I'm not asking this to be cute, but if they felt CA was guilty, but didn't feel that they could vote guilty, isn't a mistrial the way to go?

PiKA2001 · #2 07-06-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said today that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

The jury's jaw dropping not guilty verdict shocked court observers, but it was also a difficult moment for the panel, Ford said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. No one from the jury was willing to come out and talk to the media in the hours after the verdict.

"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."

Instead of murder, Casey Anthony, 25, was found guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement and could be released from jail as early as Thursday."

I'm not an attorney, but shouldn't they have had a mistrial if they felt that way? I'm not asking this to be cute, but if they felt CA was guilty, but didn't feel that they could vote guilty, isn't a mistrial the way to go?

AFAIK the jury has to be in a deadlock in order for them to declare a mistrial. In this case, all if the jurors agreed there wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty.

BluPhire · #3 07-06-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

AFAIK the jury has to be in a deadlock in order for them to declare a mistrial. In this case, all if the jurors agreed there wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty.

Yep, they all agreed not enough evidence. No mistrial.

I knew the internet wouldn't let me down.

katydidKD · #4 07-06-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

I knew the internet wouldn't let me down.

Drolefille · #5 07-06-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

I'm not an attorney, but shouldn't they have had a mistrial if they felt that way? I'm not asking this to be cute, but if they felt CA was guilty, but didn't feel that they could vote guilty, isn't a mistrial the way to go?

What PIKA said. Just because they 'feel' guilty doesn't mean they agreed that there wasn't reasonable doubt. And obviously they thought that there was.

Besides a 'hung' jury, a mistrial would require some sort of tampering or impropriety with the jury, AFAIK.

PiKA2001 · #6 07-06-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

What PIKA said. Just because they 'feel' guilty doesn't mean they agreed that there wasn't reasonable doubt. And obviously they thought that there was.

Besides a 'hung' jury, a mistrial would require some sort of tampering or impropriety with the jury, AFAIK.

Yeah, that was the word I was looking for.

KSig RC · #7 07-06-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

I'm not an attorney, but shouldn't they have had a mistrial if they felt that way? I'm not asking this to be cute, but if they felt CA was guilty, but didn't feel that they could vote guilty, isn't a mistrial the way to go?

Google "Burden of Proof" for your answer - that's how it manifests itself in reality. It's not enough to think somebody did it - you have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt they did.