Casey Anthony found not guilty.. Wait what?

[EricHill78]

[snusgetter]

Armchair jurors know it all!!

~
Blaming the jury

Somewhere along the way, the American viewing public mistook the Casey Anthony trial for an episode of "American Idol." If the audience had been allowed to vote, she'd be on her way to Florida's death row.

Instead, she'll be released within days, acquitted of first-degree murder of her 2-year-old daughter. She'll be free to sell her story, have another baby, go on breathing — all to the loud dismay of the armchair jurors who thought the prosecution gave a better performance than the defense. The verdict from the couch: The jury blew it.

...
How can those who watched the trial on TV see things so differently from those who watched from the jury box? For starters, the jurors had to swear their minds weren't made up. During the trial, they weren't allowed to discuss testimony or to watch or read news accounts about it. Home viewers got live coverage, complete with "analysis," plus a daily barrage of she-did-it commentary. In the court of public opinion, Anthony was convicted long before the trial's first gavel.

Jurors also saw things the home viewers didn't. Unlike those watching on TV or the computer, jurors couldn't change the channel, chat on Facebook, answer the phone or otherwise go about their lives. How many people watched every minute of testimony from their recliners? How many watched every minute and nothing else?

It's easy to understand why the verdict is so unsatisfying. A toddler is dead, nobody is being held accountable, and Anthony sure looked guilty on television. But the case was tried in the courtroom, not the living room, and the evidence came up short.

Stop blaming the jurors. They had someone's life in their hands. The rest of us were holding the remote.


btw...
"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot.
Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power.
They can only find them "not guilty.""

[devilock76]

Look the fact is they couldn't even determine the cause of death from the forensic evidence. If you cannot prove if it was even a murder how do you convict someone as the murderer. The fault lies entirely on the fault lies entirely on the prosecutor.

Ken

[Premium Parrots]

Snusgetter. I checked out the hidden link at the bottom of your post. I just have to post that info.....

Innocent v. Not Guilty
Jury Decision Based Entirely On Evidence
(Media's Declarations of Innocence Inaccurate)
By: Hugh Duvall

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

A number of high-profile trials have shaken our country during the past year. As a criminal-defense attorney, in the wake of each I have felt an overwhelming urge to share a frequent part of my closing arguments. It is the point at which I educate jury members to the distinction between their ability to return a verdict of "not guilty" and their inability to return a verdict of "innocent."

In most of my cases, it is the most important piece of information I pass to the jury before it begins its deliberations.

I do not rush out with it. I preface it, slowly and carefully, in an even and solemn voice: A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client's name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."

From then on during my closing argument, I use the terms "not guilty" and "not proven" interchangeably. I attempt to hammer home, relentlessly, that the jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence." Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent. It is one of analyzing what evidence the state has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt. It is the jury's job to sniff out the reasonable possibility that the defendant may not be guilty.

This is not simply the message of a die-hard criminal-defense attorney crying out from the wilderness. There are two reasons why it is important for us to realize and articulate the difference between these concepts.

First, the fundamental cog by which our judicial system operates is the jurors, those stalwart, albeit sometimes reluctant, souls who are required to take time from their regular schedules to decide the fate of a stranger. These people must, of course, be free of any bias or prejudice that might influence their ability to decide cases fairly. Yet, the disregard among the media and public to note the distinction between the concepts of "not guilty" and "innocent" works against this purpose.

Each time a member of the media or other citizen states that William Kennedy Smith or one of the officers accused of beating Rodney King was found "innocent," they are not only incorrect, but are also ingraining within potential jurors a misconception about their role. They enhance the risk that enough jurors on a panel will retire into a jury room believing that it is their task to determine whether there is enough evidence to find a defendant innocent.

While the above is reason enough to motivate us to maintain a clear understanding of a jury's capability, there is another, arguably equal reason. Once a person has been charged with having committed a crime, there is no mechanism by which that individual can prove his innocence. Yes, the law provides that the person is innocent unless proven guilty, but that is a legalism. It is not, nor could it be, a factual statement. The person, in fact, did or did not commit an offense.

The state of Oregon maintains three systems to charge someone with a crime — the grand jury, preliminary hearings, and the preparation of a complaint (the last only in misdemeanor cases). In order for an indictment (the piece of paper actually accusing a defendant) to be handed down, either a grand jury (seven citizens selected from the jury pool) must "believe the person is guilty" or a judge after a preliminary hearing must make a finding that "probable cause" exists to charge the defendant — that is, a finding that the defendant is "probably" guilty.

Accused persons, therefore, go to trial with a finding having already been made, albeit in some cases haphazardly, that they are more than likely guilty of the crime alleged. A terrible stain is cast upon them. Even if the jury concludes that reasonable doubt exists as to guilt, it is a stain that will remain forever. Ask yourself if everyone believes that William Kennedy Smith is innocent. Ask yourself the same question of the police officers charged in the Rodney King beating.

The gist of my point is this: As a society, in administering the prosecution function, we must keep at the forefront of our mind that there is no way to reverse the implication of charging someone with a crime. Allowing ourselves to ignore the distinction between a jury's ability to find someone "not guilty" and its inability to find someone "innocent" works against this important interest.

Watch nearly any news program. Read nearly any newspaper. You will find that quotes such as "Mr. Black pleaded innocent" and "The jury found Mr. White innocent" commonplace. This is not inadvertent on the part of the media. It is, in fact, a considered decision to use the word "innocent" in place of the words "not guilty." This policy is to ensure that in the event the word "not" was somehow dropped from the text the individual being discussed would not suffer harm, and, no doubt, that the media source would not suffer a lawsuit.

While this policy is reasonable, its price is news coverage that is less than completely accurate. The media should take every opportunity to remind the public of the reason for its policy. The public should keep that policy in mind. Furthermore, the public should understand that it has no similar policy interests and use the term "not guilty."

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.co...t-Guilty.shtml

[snusgetter]

Look the fact is they couldn't even determine the cause of death from the forensic evidence. If you cannot prove if it was even a murder how do you convict someone as the murderer. The fault lies entirely on the fault lies entirely on the prosecutor.

Ken

It would be helpful to know who your remarks are directed at.

In any event, "the evidence came up short", thus leaving the jury to judge as they did.



@PP... never thought of a bolded link as being 'hidden'

[RobsanX]

There are so many things I could say about this case, but all the evidence is easy for anyone to look at. The bottom line for me was what the prosecutor said in closing arguments. People don't cover up accidents to make them look like murder.

I don't think that she premeditated to kill her daughter, but she did something illegal to her that resulted in her death. By law, if a person dies in the commission of a felony, that is still first degree murder.

[EricHill78]

I hope they pass that law where as if you don't file a missing child report within a certain period of time it will be considered a crime.

[c.nash]

Snusgetter your post was spot on man.
People don't know what the jury actually saw. There was NO media spin on their trial coverage.
Honestly the media always puts a spin on everything, and it convinces a lot of people to follow.

From the beginning I said she was going to get off, because I KNEW there wasn't enough evidence. How can you say that this woman without a shadow of a doubt killed her baby? You can't, and that's how the jury had to come to their decision.

[devilock76]

It would be helpful to know who your remarks are directed at.

In any event, "the evidence came up short", thus leaving the jury to judge as they did.



@PP... never thought of a bolded link as being 'hidden'

Sorry it was in reply to PP blaming the judge. Didn't feel like quoting it due to length.

Ken

[devilock76]

There are so many things I could say about this case, but all the evidence is easy for anyone to look at. The bottom line for me was what the prosecutor said in closing arguments. People don't cover up accidents to make them look like murder.

I don't think that she premeditated to kill her daughter, but she did something illegal to her that resulted in her death. By law, if a person dies in the commission of a felony, that is still first degree murder.

Circumstantial evidence, at best. You can't rely solely on that for a capital murder case, and again the prosecutor should have known that. They couldn't even conclude what happened to the victim in this case. It is not about what you feel it is about what you can prove. Lynch mobs are about what people feel. Sounds like you would do well on one of those, not on a jury.

Ken

[devilock76]

I hope they pass that law where as if you don't file a missing child report within a certain period of time it will be considered a crime.

It would be a good law. Of course it will probably need lots of qualifying stipulations. I mean what if your child is at boarding school or something and you don't hear something from them after a week of phone calls and some type of "administrative error" does not notify you the child is indeed missing from the campus.

Just saying.

Ken

[Premium Parrots]

Sorry it was in reply to PP blaming the judge. Didn't feel like quoting it due to length.

Ken

I never said the judge was at fault. I didn't blame the judge at all. I think that judge did a great job.

as a matter of fact, I think the defense and the procescutor did a great job also. Its the jury I have a problem with.

[TheJanitor]

I know if I was on that jury no way could I send her to the electric chair with such little evidence. Do I think she did it? Sure do. But, I consider this a win for the justice system. Better to let 10 guitly people go free than 1 innocent person go to prison/ be executed IMO.

[RobsanX]

Sounds like you would do well on one of those, not on a jury.

Ken

You know what Ken, you can go **** yourself...

Rob

[Bigblue1]

How's the self ****ing going ken?