Casey Anthony Trial

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well, they shouldn't see that sort of stuff. And honestly, with the evidence the state did put on, if I'm a defense lawyer, I'm loving it. Experts on "behavior"? Smell evidence? DNA from the air? If we're going CSI-to-the-max, then it's safe to say that the state's case is very flimsy, and really, it was.

We have to use evidence to convict and sentence someone to death. We can't just do it because we feel it in our bones that she's guilty and she didn't act appropriately or whatever.

Exactly. Because, really... if the media decided you killed someone and you didn't, and everything they put on TV made it look like maybe you did, you wouldn't want to end up in prison or put to death if you didn't do it.

I have a friend who was convicted for something really awful based on circumstantial evidence. She's in prison for 6 years, her two kids are being raised by their dad and she'll be forever ostracized. She's lost her career and her most of the things important to her in her life. She did make a mistake, but she didn't make the mistake she was convicted of and the mistake she made wasn't illegal. People jumped to a lot of conclusions and believed things that were said in court that were not true. She's one of the greatest people I know and it's beyond sad. Perhaps that experience makes me question things even more.

[UGAalum94]

Anyone remember a few years ago when I suggested I'd like Nancy Grace to be eaten by sharks? So much of this TV coverage could have been prevented if only. . .

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Anyone remember a few years ago when I suggested I'd like Nancy Grace to be eaten by sharks? So much of this TV coverage could have been prevented if only. . .

[TriDeltaSallie]

I didn't follow this case at all except for what I saw on the cover of People Magazine at the store. However, because of that I was surprised to hear she got off. After reading a bit, I'm less surprised.

I don't know how many of you have been on a jury, especially in a more complicated case. If you haven't, it is hard to fully understand what the jury goes through. I was jury foreman for a sexual assault case several years ago. It was both a sad and fascinating experience. It was not fun to listen to all the details of the case. But it was really fascinating to be a part of a jury in action and look at all the different ways the other jurors heard and understood the evidence that was presented. It wasn't exactly 12 Angry Men, but still an interesting process. We did find the man guilty.

After the trial was over I was waiting for my husband to pick me up. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney came out of the courthouse and struck up a conversation with me. We had a very interesting conversation about the case, why we had convicted, etc. It was interesting to hear their questions and see their reactions about the different aspects.

Re: getting emotionally involved in cases... It was one of the most emotionally draining and stressful things I've ever done. I think I cried most of the rest of the day and off and on for several days. A large part of it was reflecting on the fact that there but for the grace of God go I and how blessed I am to have the life I do.

That said, after that experience I will never allow myself to be seated on a jury in that kind of case again. If I ever reach the voir dire stage again, I'll flat out tell the attorneys that I've done my duty to my country once and won't be doing it again.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well, they shouldn't see that sort of stuff. And honestly, with the evidence the state did put on, if I'm a defense lawyer, I'm loving it. Experts on "behavior"? Smell evidence? DNA from the air? If we're going CSI-to-the-max, then it's safe to say that the state's case is very flimsy, and really, it was.

We have to use evidence to convict and sentence someone to death. We can't just do it because we feel it in our bones that she's guilty and she didn't act appropriately or whatever.

All of this.

As I put it to an irate friend earlier: Casey Anthony probably was involved in her child's death. Probably isn't even close to good enough to convict.

That's a good thing - probably a great thing.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Jen

I have told my mom if I ever go missing, Nancy Grace is not to be told lol.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Best quote of the night so far

"I seriously haven't seen nancy grace this furious since her bungling henchmen let those dalmatians escape."

iLost. #wrongthread

I just want to see that little girl's death vindicated. I pray that there is an appeal and/or the investigation continues. There should be justice for this crime and I really don't care who the murderer is--I absolutely believe it was Casey based on what little I know but if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was someone else, I wouldn't say another word about it.

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

One of my friends just posted on her status that as a tribute & remembrance of Caylee, we should all turn on our porch lights at 9pm.

I got home after 9pm and my bulb is blown. Tell your friend I was there in spirit.

[WaterChild]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I pray that there is an appeal

It doesn't work that way. The state can't appeal. A person can't be tried twice for the same crime once acquitted.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by WaterChild

It doesn't work that way. The state can't appeal. A person can't be tried twice for the same crime once acquitted.

*sigh* I suspected that. But I thought I might be wrong since I saw that on Double Jeopardy. The vast majority of my law knowledge comes from movies so I really hoped that Ashley Judd told me something inaccurate.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I absolutely believe it was Casey based on what little I know but if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was someone else, I wouldn't say another word about it.

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?

[DrPhil]

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?

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.

****
On this morning's news, a legal expert was explaining the jury's decision. He said that a mother (I assume he also meant parent, in general) is supposed to protect her children. But this isn't about mother vs. child and anger over a supposed bad parent. This was the state vs. Casey Anthony and the evidence just wasn't there to convict.

She was found guilty of 4 misdemeanor counts that could carry a sentence of 1-4 years each (I think that's what was stated). I wonder if she'll receive any prison time.

The news was also criticizing Casey Anthony's smile and celebration as though she should have been crying or had a blank face because her daughter is still dead. Perhaps, perhaps not. Anthony's parents supposedly had a blank face and left the courtroom before the media frenzy began.

[BluPhire]

Best quote of the night so far

"I seriously haven't seen nancy grace this furious since her bungling henchmen let those dalmatians escape."

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Best quote of the night so far

"I seriously haven't seen nancy grace this furious since her bungling henchmen let those dalmatians escape."

LOL!

[DrPhil]

Color me clueless but what exactly would the television public see of the actual trial that the jury doesn't see because they have been called out of the courtroom?

I think the television and Internet public is really only accessing the extra information that the media is feeding us. The jurors don't have access to the media commentary and all of the side tales of Casey Anthony. The jury sees what is included in the actual trial. I thank God for that because I do not want a legal system that is based on negative media depictions of the accused. The legal system is already comprised of enough humanity.

[PiKA2001]

I think public outrage is normal and healthy in these types of situations. Hell, I'd be worried for our society if everyone was indifferent to the verdict. You lose some and you win some. I think she either intentionally killed her daughter or accidentally killed her and tried to cover it but the evidence really wasn't there. Sometimes juries convict anyway (Scott Peterson) and sometimes they don't (Casey Anthony).

I've also never understood why Nancy Grace picks certain case like this and the Duke lacross players and just beats them to hell and back. I know just within the last year alone in MI there was a man who killed his three very young sons in the woods and a story about a young mother who supposedly sold her 4yr old daughter to a convicted rapist for drug money. I don't recall those stories making it past the local papers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

a story about a young mother who supposedly sold her 4yr old daughter to a convicted rapist for drug money. I don't recall those stories making it past the local papers.

Was she white?

And aside from that, such a scenario is sadly not uncommon. I've been doing volunteer work lately representing the children taken into the state's custody from abusive parents... nothing shocks me anymore.