Casey Anthony Not Guilty Verdict

[Larry Kart]

I'll tell you one thing -- ypu haven't lived until you've raised doubts about the veracity of two allegedly molested kids in front of eleven strangers who believe them. Also, though I no longer can recall the details, I offered some theory about the possible nature and motives of the natural father in all this that my fellow jurors regarded as way too fancy-assed "psychological" on the face of it. To go on like that to ever more stony faces...

[JSngry]

I'll tell you one thing -- ypu haven't lived until you've raised doubts about the veracity of two allegedly molested kids in front of eleven strangers who believe them. Also, though I no longer can recall the details, I offered some theory about the possible nature and motives of the natural father in all this that my fellow jurors regarded as way too fancy-assed "psychological" on the face of it. To go on like that to ever more stony faces...

That's where Paladin would have broke it down for them and then built it back up to where they would have no choice but to accept. Either that or else shame them into submission for allowing themselves to fall victim to their baser, lazier instincts. I've seen him do it both ways.

Either way, the bad guy ends up exposed as guilty and dead as a result.

Paladin knew how to make that shit work!

[Shawn]

still sums up the whole wacky process quite nicely

[JETman]

still sums up the whole wacky process quite nicely

Classic. Pretty sure I saw it on Broadway as well.

[JSngry]

There's a courthouse on Broadway?

[Noj]

What happens when you get 12 angry men like this on a jury?

[JSngry]

What happens when you get 12 angry men like this on a jury?

You get an emo-jury!

[Guy Berger]

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism.

Guy

[Dan Gould]

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism.

Guy

You're respectfully invited to shove your moral criticism up your ass.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

"12 Angry Men and the Alternate"

[Shawn]

I was standing out in front of the CNN building on Sunset Blvd earlier this evening, the sign crawling around the side of the building was talking about this case. It basically said "....is either the most talented defense attorney in the country, or the luckiest.".

Really? That's insightful ain't it? Someone put a lot of thought into that particular headline.

[Tom Storer]

In-fucking-sane.

Motive isn't an element of the crime to be proven.

The medical examiner determined the death to be a homicide.

Who takes an accident and makes it look like a homicide? Who has their own flesh and blood die and have no burial or memorial or even respectful treatment of the body? As the ME also said, everytime a toddler drowns, the parents or caregivers call 911. They don't cover it up.

Bat-shit fucking insane is what that alternate believes.

Like GA Russell indicated earlier, it's up to the prosecution to convince the jurors not that the defense theory is ridiculous, but that the prosecution theory is airtight. It's not enough that the defendant is very likely to have been somehow involved in either the death or some weird coverup. If you charge someone with capital murder you have to present convincing evidence that that person actually did the murder. The defendant might be a bad person, a liar, an unnatural mother who partied instead of mourning. That may be a crime in many people's eyes, but it's not the same crime as murder. Again, juries don't pick between "proven innocent" and "proven guilty," they pick between "proven guilty" and "not proven guilty."

Edited July 8, 2011 by Tom Storer

[Guy Berger]

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism.

Guy

You're respectfully invited to shove your moral criticism up your ass.

Dan, first off let me back up and apologize for my tone, which was condescending.

But let me ask you - what do you think motivated people to watch the Anthony trial?

[Dan Gould]

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism.

Guy

You're respectfully invited to shove your moral criticism up your ass.

Dan, first off let me back up and apologize for my tone, which was condescending.

But let me ask you - what do you think motivated people to watch the Anthony trial?

Thank you, because I don't think this is an issue of morals - though I suspect you're still going to come back to that.

To answer your question, no one can truly speak for the great numbers of people interested in watching or following the Anthony trial. But my best guess is:

Sadness for the loss of such a young person, to all indications at the hands of her mother and a desire to see justice done;

The seemingly sociopathic behavior of the mother in the 31 days after the child disappeared as shown by the lies she told to friends, family and the police.

General fascination with any case where a mother kills her child (or children).

[Man with the Golden Arm]

with the crazed media and even crazier folks skirmishing to get seats and now out for blood on the street, I wonder, despite the heavy security, if were in for a "Jack Ruby"?

[alankin]

Like GA Russell indicated earlier, it's up to the prosecution to convince the jurors not that the defense theory is ridiculous, but that the prosecution theory is airtight. It's not enough that the defendant is very likely to have been somehow involved in either the death or some weird coverup. If you charge someone with capital murder you have to present convincing evidence that that person actually did the murder. The defendant might be a bad person, a liar, an unnatural mother who partied instead of mourning. That may be a crime in many people's eyes, but it's not the same crime as murder. Again, juries don't pick between "proven innocent" and "proven guilty," they pick between "proven guilty" and "not proven guilty."

I was trying to figure out how to make this argument. Thanks for your clarity, Tom.

[Shawn]

and if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt, it's the jury's duty to rule not guilty.

[Dan Gould]

and if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt, it's the jury's duty to rule not guilty.

And this is the crux of the matter for many juries. They don't have a clue what reasonable means, or they think it means no doubt or whatever the hell their Oprah-polluted minds think is right.

Now we are hearing from at least one juror that if it weren't a capital case, they would have convicted her. This shows that they completely ignored the judge's instruction that they are to determine guilt without regard to the potential penalty. Its jury nullification when they allow the potential penalty to effect their judgement in the guilt phase.

On top of that, the same juror made a comment that if they only could have considered other charges - well where the hell was she? They also acquitted on two lesser included offenses which did not carry the death penalty.

This proves to me that the jury did an unfortunately typical job, allowing inappropriate factors to outweigh the important ones.

[Shawn]

Here's the thing. She was tried by a jury of her peers. The prosecution has to nail the case PERFECTLY, they didn't, they ruled not guilty. She was acquitted. End of story.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

and if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt, it's the jury's duty to rule not guilty.

That's the key - reasonable doubt. It is almost universally misinterpreted by many jurors as "any doubt at all".

During the case where I was the foreman and we couldn't come to a verdict, the judge came in at the end of the first day and explained (again) that you can have doubts and still find the defendant guilty. He said that most jurors misinterpret "reasonable doubt" to mean "no doubt". I got the impression from him that "no doubt at all" has become the mindset of today's juries.

[Shawn]

REASONABLE DOUBT

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.''

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

Edited July 8, 2011 by Shawn

[Tom 1960]

Here's the thing. She was tried by a jury of her peers. The prosecution has to nail the case PERFECTLY, they didn't, they ruled not guilty. She was acquitted. End of story.

Tell that to Headline News and it's around the clock coverage!

[Teasing the Korean]

I wonder how some of you would feel about reasonable doubt if you were the ones being tried.

[Dan Gould]

Are you saying that some of us have less stringent definitions of the term or are you making the utterly insignificant observation that people standing trial hope and pray that they get a jury of dullards who will only listen to what the defense says?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I wonder how some of you would feel about reasonable doubt if you were the ones being tried.

I am talking about people holding onto a tiny little niggle of doubt and rationalizing that doubt into "not guilty" when it is obvious that the person *is* guilty. What small facts give jurors "doubt" is amazing. What's funny is that they almost never add any doubt to the defense testimony, only to the prosecution.

BTW, I'd like to add that I don't know if that's what happened in the Casey Anthony trial, just that I am unable to be surprised by any verdict in our justice system any more. This goes both ways. I've read some horror stories of convictions that are just as bad as this. Juries can and will continue to be fooled by the lawyers. Playing with "reasonable doubt" is easiest card a defense lawyer can play. Listen to a few closing arguments and watch them play with that word "doubt".