Posted on 07/05/2011 9:31:40 PM PDT by orwell2112
OS ANGELES – Legal experts and scientists were quick to issue a verdict of their own following the shocking “not guilty” decision announced today in the Casey “Tot Mom” Anthony trial: the 12 jurors who were assigned to the OJ “The Juice” Simpson case are no longer the 12 dumbest people on the planet.
The Juice, a former NFL star running back and master knife wielder, was found not guilty in the “trial of the century” in 1995 despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
“But at least they had an excuse, an ulterior motive, for liberating The Juice,” explains Dr. Timothy Miser, a law professor, psychiatrist and talk-show host with the Buckhead Community College in Atlanta.
(Excerpt) Read more at wineandexcrement.com ...
Anyone who receives a jury trial and assumes he will be judged “by his peers” must assume himself to be a nitwit.
From the clarity of thought I see displayed here on FR, I would guess that very few Freepers have ever been selected for a jury. The system intentionally screens logical thinkers out of the box. Who gets there?
References: Reading People, by Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, Ph.D., Ballantine Books, 1984. Also - Signals; How to use body language for power success and love, by Allan Pease, Bantam Books, 1984.
OJ 2.0 huh? Did the system work in 1995 when OJ walked free? Can you admit some jurors and even complete juries are idiots? Or do you need a preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that all 12 are morons to come to that conclusion on your own?
I wasn’t talking about OJ. Only this case.
(
Preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt are two different standards, btw. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is not a standard)
And sure, any identifiable group of human beings can be populated solely by morons. However, it is very different watching news tabloid coverage and being in the courtroom as a juror. One is not even close to the other.
Sure, Anthony strikes me as a horrible human being. If I was forced to place a bet, I’d bet on she did it.
Having said ALL that, it is up to the state to prove it. And from what I (and many others) saw, the State didn’t.
I realize that these kinds of cases are immensely frustrating. But having Prosecuted as long as I did, I can tell you it is VITAL to the survival of America that this system works. The State must be put to it’s proof. If not ...
The jury ruled. That is our system. Preserve it or see much worse than the injustice you see in this verdict.
As for me, I did not follow the court trial, did not see the information the jury saw and as such can’t make a judgement on this. I’m more inclined to go with the jury, however, than with the media’s hysterical coverage of the trial.
I will never know but I accept our jury system even with its faults.
The prosecutor that was laughing should lose his job. Totally unprofessional. What does that guy get paid?
Oh come now, it is not the end of the world. If you are so enthralled in this case that it causes you to feel that way you should not have followed the case at all.
If you are correct it still does not change that the jury system, as imperfect as it is, is still a far sight better than other systems. It remains a system that protects innocent people wrongly accused even if that means some guilty ones go free.
Exactly. There seems to be many uneducated people with no idea about the foundations of our judicial system. That they would be here on a conservative website shows how far education has sunk.
The media reported excerpts of a 33 day trial. The facts we KNOW is that the little girl is dead. That the mother knew she was dead. Stuffed her in a bag and dumped her in a swamp. The mother lied to the world and had hundreds of people looking for the missing child for months KNOWING she was dead. Oh let us not forget the pics of the sweet young mom out partying and entering Hot Body contest KNOWING her daughter was dead.
So you believe the defense story that they took an accident and made it look like murder so not guilty? Really?
You state that watching bits of a trial and being on the jury are two very different things. You then go on to state that the prosecution did not prove the case. So you were a member of the jury? Or just like to have things both ways?
There was plenty of evidence and if you followed the trial closely you would know that. Read the transcripts and then tell me there was no evidence.
I doubt they even watched/heard/read a fourth of the EVIDENCE or they would know better.
You say it is very different watching news tabloid coverage and being in the courtroom as a juror. Are you implying that the jurors have more or better insight as to the case? I would disagree if that is your opinion. Between Tru-TV and HLN there hasn't been much of the trial that wasn't televised, and the tv audience most certainly sees more than when the jury is taken out of the courtroom.
While I'd agree the state could have put together a better case organising the facts and focusing less on certain areas, based on the evidence and their witnesses and the excellent closing statements by Linda Burdick, I think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt Casey marie Anthony killed her daughter.
No, you are wrong. Some of us read the evidence and some of you obviously didn't. That is the difference. We didn't watch a bunch of news readers. We actually followed the evidence.
Jose Baez deserves the death penalty for being an accessory after the fact for helping a murderer lie her way out of a murder. He gave himself away as an anti- death penalty activists who believes that first degree murder and capital punishment are a moral equivalent, thus admitting his motive for taking the case and being lawless and immoral in his defense. He even said that he was proud that he “saved a life” and draws no distinction between guilt and innocence. He should be dis-barred at very least and never be allowed to defend a death penalty case again. His only interest in the case was to prevent the death penalty....
Do you think a jury who considered Baez opening statement EVIDENCE isn’t stupid because that is what the alternate juror said tonight.
He said it was an accident that turned into a crime scene. Yes, that is just freaking brilliant.
What was the cause of death of Caylee Anthony?
The OJ verdict isn’t the correct comparison...the Rodney King verdict is more like it. In both cases, a person taking a casual view of the facts and evidence would conclude that the defendants were guilty. But in a courtroom, where the evidence is picked at for hour after hour..when the drudgery of sifting through every detail time and time again drains away all the emotion and sensationalism...neither jury felt the prosecution had done enough to prove their case.
I’m OK with that...it’s the way the system works.
I like how Michael Berry put it:
How can 12 people be so STUPID as to think that a woman who partied and didn’t report her child missing for 28 days, didn’t KILL HER?”
I agree. I believe what many people do not understand (or refuse to understand) is that in a legal case (as opposed to public opinion or 'common sense') there is a legal burden of proof that needs to be met. That is where people first go wrong - they confuse legal burden of proof with 'but everyone knows he/she did it.' Even if that is the case, and 'everyone knows,' the fact still remains that the legal burden of proof needs to be met. The second part where many people go wrong (and this is the part that explains why OJ Simpson went free) is that legal cases can roughly be divided into two (Civil and Criminal), and that when it comes to Criminal cases (like this one, or OJ's trial) the standard of legal proof is very different from a civil case. In a civil case (where the worst that can happen in most cases is a monetary fine) the legal burden of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' where the only thing needed is to prove a 51% likelihood that you did it. That is not hard to prove, and this is why OJ was VERY quickly found guilty in the civil case (that was held after that big flop of a criminal case). Now, in a criminal case (where someone can end up getting locked for years, or even executed), the legal burden of proof is much greater. You have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is much much much harder than proving just a 51% likelihood of something.
That is where the problem comes in and what some people do not understand.
In a criminal case it is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Now, in many cases the prosecution does that ...but then again in many cases the defense and/or accused do not mount a proper legal defence. This is why you will see some silly perp selling weed in some corner going to jail for years, and the rich kid of some celebrity (or a celebrity him/herself) is caught with enough heroin or cocaine to jump-start a '60s revival and they walk away with glorified community service. While there are indeed double standards, the level of legal defence does play a part. Look at someone like OJ Simpson ...it was an open and shut case. Blood was found, his story was morphing like nebulous stardust, his alibi was weak, it was a prosecution's wetdream. However the prosecution should have known that they were not up against some silly weed peddlar with 500 Dollars to his name, but a person who had the finances and the means to get one of the best legal defence teams money could buy. That prosecution has gone down in history as one of the best examples of snatching victory away from a nigh-concluded ending (seriously, M.Clark's team acted like amateur night, especially considering they were going against a defense dream team that was certain to explore every knook and cranny, and exploit any fracture point available). When the prosecution started bringing up witnesses that had their credibility (easily) destroyed (Mark Fuhrman, for example, is probably a good officer and man who totally got torn up during the trial - however, the prosecution should have known of the tape of him stating expletives, and also it did not help him that he was found guilty of perjury), there was proof that some of the evidence had been mishandled (in one instance the DNA evidence was being carried around in a coat pocket for a day), and other small situations that in 99% of trials would not have been an issue ...but against a defence team costing a couple million Dollars, that is all they needed. A slight crack with which to cast some reasonable doubt that the evidence was mishandled, the investigating team incompetent, and a chance that one of the detectives had a chip on his shoulder.
Did OJ commit the murders - I believe most sane people believe that. OJ Simpson himself does (I believe he has more or less confessed to the murder). During the Civil case it was over and done with very quickly.
However, for a Criminal case where the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, who is considered innocent until proven guilty, is indeed guilty ...that prosecution better have its A-game on, especially when it is a high visibility case where the accused has hired a legal team costing the same as the annual budget of a small town! The defence will not be mucking about, and the prosecution better act like the accused is not someone caught by the local PD with a 25 Dollar bag of 'buddha' in some strip mall! They better act like they are against a lean & mean defense team that is thoroughly amoral, exceedingly efficient, and with a degree of efficacy that could balance the budget deficit in a month - because that is what they will actually be up against. However, in many high profile cases (mostly rich people, of whichever race and gender and age), the prosecution normally steps up with their 'weed peddlar' game, and consequently gets treated like incompetent tripe. Even in cases when the accused is not exactly wealthy (like this one), the defense team usually attracts some really good strategists whose 'pay' is the globs and loads of free publicity (advertising really) that the trial, and a win, would provide.
Now, after the trial the prosecution (as well as many members of the public) will come up with all sorts of reasons why the person was released. If the accused was black (i.e. 'amish' per FR's 'funny' talk) it is because he is black. If the accused was white (i.e. 'the man' per DU's equally 'funny' talk) then it is because they were white. If they are beautiful it is because the jury got pixie dust in their eyes. If they are popular it is substitution of pixie dust for star dust. If they are powerful it is because of undue influence and backroom deals. There will always be 'reasons' why the person walked, and it can be hilarious how this month's reason for perp A walking (e.g. he is black) can be diametrically different from next month's (e.g. he is white). The common denominator though is this: a) a jury that actually does its job, meaning in a criminal case ensuring that the legal burden of proof necessitating proving beyond a reasonable doubt is met (which negates what they 'feel' or what they 'read' in the local paper); b) a defense team that could get the Damned time out from Gehenna with their slick words and smooth tongues and ability to turn apparent weakness into absolute strength via legal jujutsu, and finally; c) a prosecution that walks into the case thinking that the evidence is so strong (and so obvious) that their mental gears are engaged at 'weed seller' mode rather than 'I am facing the defense team my mama warned me about' mode.
Result: the accused walks, and the papers are filled with excuses as to why it happened - maybe she winked at the jury. Maybe she had a voodoo ceremony done. Maybe the aurora borealis affected the brain chemistry of the jurors making them say not guilty rather than guilty. Maybe it was swamp gas!
Fact is: mix a jury that does its job as required with a prosecution that thinks it is going after a truck-stop prostitute with a legal team that can repeal the very laws of physics, and it does not matter whether the person is male or female, juvenile or adult, black or white (sorry, amish or the man), local or foreign, democrat or republican ....as long as they have the money to get a real defence team, or the case is public enough (without being something anathema like defending Timothy McVeigh) to attract great talent who want publicity, and I would put a lot of my money on the defence. Every single time ...apart from one situation.
The prosecution teams that go after WallStreet types tend to be very good. They have to be since they assume that chances are the Street types will employ good representation. Thus the success rates against high-level white-collar crime tend to be very different from the success rates against high-level 'celebrity' crime. The difference largely is in one case having really good prosecution, and the other having people moonlighting from cases to do with weed, pet inheritance and stolen scooters. I am not trying to insult prosecutors - I think they do a great job filtering the filth that pollutes a nation. However, in certain cases they really need to bring their A game, because chances are the defense team will be working for A+ with advanced credit. That is a fact, and I am sure many people get angry when people like OJ and this lady walk, but the fact is that the jury is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution does not do its work then killers with bloody gloves that get that evidence thrown out because the detectives mishandled the evidence end up walking away with a disgusting smile on their putrid faces. People can blame the jury all they want, but they need to blame the prosecution as well. A whole lot more.
Bottom line - in the legal system it is not about whether a person is guilty or not. It is also not about whether a crime was committed or not. It is about whether the prosecution can prove the person is guilty, and that the person is guilty of the crime committed. If the prosecution cannot prove that, then the guilty will walk. That is the difference between a court of law and public opinion. In public opinion it is simply about guilt or innocence. In a court of law it is about proving guilt and assuming innocence unless guilt is proven. In a criminal case, in a court of law, it is about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and assuming innocence if that guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.