Could agree with that-----the prosecution made it a death penalty case. Had the prosecution made it a simple homicide case, they might have gotten a conviction. The jury was understandably reticent to send someone to their death without compelling evidence.
The defense created doubt about the mother's actual connection to Caylee's death.....there was no cause of death, DNA, etc......
They did have a mountain of Casey's lies....which pointed to guilt.
“The defense created doubt about the mother’s actual connection to Caylee’s death.....there was no cause of death, DNA, etc......”
“They did have a mountain of Casey’s lies....which pointed to guilt.”
You are confusing “doubt” with “reasonable doubt”...
Marcia Clark:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
The jury had the ability to convict on murder 2 and man slaughter. They didn’t.
Agree They did have a mountain of Casey’s lies.
Maybe the DA learned how to handle the next case,one must tip toe when dealing with the law.
Wrongo ace, the jury could have convicted her of manslaughter and didn't.