Casey Anthony: NOT GUILTY (of murder)

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't mean to nitpick, and the rest of your post is spot-on, but technically, the defense team doesn't even have to go that far. The prosecution has to prove every element for guilt to be established; if they fail to do that, then not-guilty is required. So the defense team could, legally anyway, say absolutely nothing.

I saw this actually explained to a jury pool by a defense attorney during voir dire (that's the process where a jury is selected) when explaining the State's obligation to prove every element. They also said, of course, that a defense attorney doing nothing and presenting no counter-evidence is strategic suicide.

I just wanted to bring that up because your comment brought the moment to mind. Food for thought and all.

Your point is well-taken, and as I hope everyone knows, I am not a lawyer.

In the end, it comes down to the jury, no matter if the defense presents a theory of the crime, offers mitigating circumstances, casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence and testimony or whatever. The jury either believes that the accused has been proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or they do not. The usual instructions to the jury from the judge generally include information about what 'reasonable doubt' is.

What I meant by my comment is that the defense's job is to establish that reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. They can do it in a variety of ways, including facts and testimony that tend to establish actual innocence, as well as by contradicting prosecution evidence and witnesses and so on. Theoretically, if they felt their case was so solid it required no defense, they could certainly sit mute; however, I would suspect that if they had a case that solid for actual innocence, they'd ask for a dismissal with prejudice and get it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the death of this child resulted from an accidental drowning as claimed by the defense, then why was her body found in a plastic bag, in a swamp, with duct tape wrapped around the her head? If she did drown why not call 911 and let the authorities sort it out?

I do not know why. Apparently the jury didn't know why either - or they suspected but did not have enough evidence to support a conviction. With whom would you argue this? Nothing you or I say can change what has happened.

Besides, the logic isn't valid. Lots of people do things that seem incriminating, but they did not commit the crime they are accused of. Remember Congressman Condit? He sure looked guilty, didn't he? Lied, covered up his affair, etc, etc. Ended up in disgrace - and I suppose rightfully so. But the same arguments were used on him - if he was innocent of his employee's murder, why not come clean with police? Well, I don't know why he didn't, but the fact is, he didn't kill her and had no involvement in her death. You can't argue that a person is guilty because they did things that appear to be the work of a guilty conscience; it may be true, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

EDIT: And remember, the defense did not have to prove anything they claimed; they only had to claim it and the jury had to decide if it was plausible. Not that it was true or not - just that it might be true.

 

[Archangel M]

My .02.

Shes "guilty" as sin. It just couldn't be proven sufficiently enough for THIS jury. There have been plenty of cases based on circumstantial evidence that resulted in a guilty verdict. Scott Peterson is one that immediately comes to mind. What convicted him was the combination of circumstantial evidence and his demeanor/lies. IMO this woman was worse than him. Party while your daughter is "missing" and unreported. Blame a non-existant nanny for her kidnapping, lie to the police throughought the investigation. Unfortunately there wasn't enough physical evidence for LE and nobody cracked in an interview room.

As an aside, something is "up" with that entire family IMO. If your daughter and grand-daughter lived with you how do YOU let your grand-daughter be missing for a MONTH?!? How did she not at least get a conviction for endangering or child abuse for THAT? This whole case is a tragedy and a little girl is dead.....

 

[crushing]

Like Trump's presedential run should have been on the E! Network and not CNN, this trial should have been on TruTV (or whatever CourtTV is now). That's my $0.02 anyway.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days. Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.

 

[JohnEdward]

A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days. Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.

I think there is relevance. The prosecution sought the death penalty, Florida as a state is pro death penalty. Because of that Jurors now have a grave and heavy decision to make if they convict. A decision that will wave heavily on the Jury's conscious. Yet, the public without having any direct and individual responsibility for a person's death works into a furor of blood lust for suitable justice for the crime. The furor is increased, as we have seen, when the verdict of not guilty was handed down. The public feels justice wasn't served. Angered by the unfavorable decision, some appeal to a higher authority (God) of which they feel, feels the same way and will enact their sense of justice. Whereas the Jury, isn't free from arm chair quarterbacking, it isn't water cooler talk, it isn't TV. They don't feel as the public does. They make the decision according to instructions, and their decision directly and personally effects them. They are less likely to work themselves into a furor of blood-lust. Especially, no one knows how the child was killed. If they did, and the child was killed horrifically that it would move the Jury in good conscious (as our society is so accustom to violence it would not be easy to do) to hand down a death penalty. The jury having the power to put someone to death, and more likely subscribing to Christian philosophy, doesn't pray to God after they make the decision. This is how I see the relevance to the discussion and the verdict.

 

[JohnEdward]

I think the Jury may have convicted her if the death penalty wasn't on the table. I remember a high profile murder case of Lacy Peterson, a husband who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Not being a lawyer or knowing details of the case, it seems he was convicted on just as much circumstantial evidence, where the death penalty was not on the table. It shows that a Jury takes sentencing someone to death a serious and grave conscious decision. The trial, despite all the media attention seemed to stay grounded and on task. I think the Jury made the decision in accordance to the law and did not decide according to public opinion. Even if the Jury felt she was guilty. I say this, many women kill their children and never get caught living their lives normally without the stigma of public infamy. This women will not, nor will her parents.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days. Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.

I don't think it is limited to Christians. From what little I've read (hard to avoid now), the family has gone into hiding, and when she is released from prison, she will be going into hiding as well. The defense lawyers report they have received death threats. While I am fairly certain that much of this is hyperbole and most would not act on such threats, some clearly would - recent incidents of people attacking government offices and officials would tend to indicate that there are still a sizable number of people in the USA who are content to let the justice system work, so long as they agree with the verdict. If they do not like the verdict, then taking the law into their own hands seems to them to be both appropriate and morally correct.

I mentioned awhile back that the number of incidents of people mailing letters with a 'white powdery substance' in them to various government offices has become epidemic - I do not know why no report has noticed this disturbing national trend; they report on the individual occurrences but ignore the trend. Anyway, that's both domestic terrorism and an example of this mentality that someone must be made to pay for the perpetrator's rage. It doesn't really matter whom, just so someone is in pain like those so aggrieved feel they are.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think the Jury may have convicted her if the death penalty wasn't on the table. I remember a high profile murder case of Lacy Peterson, a husband who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Not being a lawyer or knowing details of the case, it seems he was convicted on just as much circumstantial evidence, where the death penalty was not on the table. It shows that a Jury takes sentencing someone to death a serious and grave conscious decision. The trial, despite all the media attention seemed to stay grounded and on task. I think the Jury made the decision in accordance to the law and did not decide according to public opinion. Even if the Jury felt she was guilty. I say this, many women kill their children and never get caught living their lives normally without the stigma of public infamy. This women will not, nor will her parents.

It depends upon the state. Some states give more power to to juries than others. A jury may choose to convict on the original charge, or a lesser, included offense in some cases. I do not know what the rules were in this case. Juries may also 'nullify' laws in some states if they find the law itself to blame, a fact which prosecutors dread. Not that they would have in this case.

 

[Tez3]

In Scotland the courts have a choice of three verdicts it can bring in, the two obvious ones and a verdict of 'not proven', it's a very useful one, it means they think you are guilty but there wasn't enough evidence so you don't get a not guilty verdict so you don't get off entirely.

 

[crushing]

In Scotland the courts have a choice of three verdicts it can bring in, the two obvious ones and a verdict of 'not proven', it's a very useful one, it means they think you are guilty but there wasn't enough evidence so you don't get a not guilty verdict so you don't get off entirely.

I assume one of the two obvious ones is 'guilty', but is the other 'not guilty' or is it 'innocent'?

 

[Tez3]

I assume one of the two obvious ones is 'guilty', but is the other 'not guilty' or is it 'innocent'?

Not guilty.