Casey Anthony Trial

[KSig RC]

I think this article did a great job of discussing some relevant issues, from a global standpoint, about crime and public interest:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ll-james-crime

[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?

[PiKA2001]

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.

[Drolefille]

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]

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]

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.

[BluPhire]

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.

[thetaj]

^ going to hell for laughing at that

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

I knew the internet wouldn't let me down.

[katydidKD]

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by katydidKD

LOVE!!! Yes, I know I'm going to a fiery inferno for laughing at that but whatever. It's been a crappy day & I needed a laugh.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, so you'd impose a burden on the defense that not only would they have to prove innocence rather than keep the other side from proving guilt, but further, you'd require them to prove someone else did it?

And with what defendant's crime lab and investigative force would they do this magic you speak of?

Um, what magic are you rambling about? I never said anything about "the defense" unless police and detectives are part of "the defense." I'm not referring to defense attorneys if that's what you mean. If there isn't conclusive evidence that Casey did it than I would hope the investigation would continue to find who did. If the work thus far has been to tie Casey to the murder, then perhaps there are other avenues/suspects previously unexplored that could be now if that's possible. Of course, that's if they can even prove how Caylee died which is a long shot, I know. There's no need to be an sarcastic, know-it-all arse, Kevin. I already said I don't know a lot about this and am only stating what I'd like to see happen.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Christiangirl already said she doesn't know much about the law.

Christiangirl, being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent and it does not require proof that someone else did it. The point is whether or not the evidence can convict YOU of doing it. If there's evidence that someone else and someone in particular did it, okay I guess, but generally speaking a separate trial would have to delve much further into that.

I know already knew the first bit (not happy about it but I understand now). Thank you for clarifying the bolded. I was pretty angry at hearing the verdict the first time, but I see why it had to happen. And iDied at those pix posted. GC never lets me down on that front.

[MSKKG]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I guess it's a moo point.

The answer to today's Jumble is "Moo Point." I thought of this thread.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Um, what magic are you rambling about? I never said anything about "the defense" unless police and detectives are part of "the defense." I'm not referring to defense attorneys if that's what you mean. If there isn't conclusive evidence that Casey did it than I would hope the investigation would continue to find who did. If the work thus far has been to tie Casey to the murder, then perhaps there are other avenues/suspects previously unexplored that could be now if that's possible. Of course, that's if they can even prove how Caylee died which is a long shot, I know. There's no need to be an sarcastic, know-it-all arse, Kevin. I already said I don't know a lot about this and am only stating what I'd like to see happen.



I know already knew the first bit (not happy about it but I understand now). Thank you for clarifying the bolded. I was pretty angry at hearing the verdict the first time, but I see why it had to happen. And iDied at those pix posted. GC never lets me down on that front.

Thing is, the prosecution/investigators are probably fairly certain that they are right and that this is where the investigation led. If there were more suspects, then they might continue to proceed down those lines, but a conviction without new evidence would be all the more difficult for the media circus of this trial.

Her acquittal doesn't mean they didn't find the killer, it means they couldn't prove it. Nor does it mean that she IS the killer, but they may simply have no other significant evidence. A lawyer can better say how likely it is for someone else to be tried.

[thetaj]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

LOVE!!! Yes, I know I'm going to a fiery inferno for laughing at that but whatever. It's been a crappy day & I needed a laugh.

Lol I definitely meant I'd be there with ya