Posted on 07/17/2011 1:14:20 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Enough articles have been written criticizing the result of the Casey Anthony case. I am not here to do that. While cases such as this can be polarizing, they can also be instructive. After following the case, here are some things I thought stood out as significant, but perhaps were not so obvious.
CSI Effect
For a long time now, we in the law enforcement professions have noted and at times feared, what has come to be known as the CSI Effect. What is this? The false expectation that, as in the television series, conclusive and irrefutable evidence will always be found at the crime scene. If life were only so.
As many of my colleagues know, rare is the crime scene where there is a lot of incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, criminals don't roll their fingerprints on surfaces leaving perfect prints - usually all we find are smudges. Many criminals know that bleach destroys DNA evidence as does high humidity and swamp-like conditions. Some rapists now carry prophylactics with them or make victims shower before they leave. Nevertheless, jurors, having witnessed hundreds of hours of CSI type shows, fully expect the evidence to be overwhelming when most cases tried today are in fact circumstantial.
Related Articles
O.J. Revisited: Those Who Don't Learn From the Past Are Doomed to Repeat It O.J. Revisited: Will the Casey Anthony Jury Acquit If They Can't Make It Fit? Did Casey Kill Caylee? How Forensic Psychology Can Help Humanize Evil Deeds Jury Gullibility in Orlando Consequential Conversations, Part III
Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
Find Local: Acupuncturists Chiropractors Massage Therapists Dentists and more!
By being over reliant on forensic evidence, jurors erroneously reject other kinds of information which should be considered. For instance, in America, the people who most often hurt children are the parents or care givers; similarly spouses or former relations are usually responsible for adult deaths at home. So we don't have to look far. And in these cases, DNA is not an issue because these individuals have, or have had legitimate access to the victim so, unless they cut themselves while committing the crime, DNA is irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that there are many ways to kill without leaving any kind of DNA evidence, especially where the victim is small or can't resist.
When jurors expect forensic evidence to be decisive we find that they become intellectually lazy. Rather than engage the problem for hours by looking at what they have, it is easier for them to say, "We wanted more." In most cases there is enough there, it just has to be worked intellectually. Justice requires that no stone be left unturned, that jurors analyze every fact assiduously. It is intellectual laziness to say there wasn't enough.
Jury Selection
In most criminal cases in America there is no need for jury consultants. However, there is a reason why they exist and it is primarily to assist the defense pick the jury that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. I will repeat: that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. What this means is that jury consultants (mostly hired by the defense) are there to "game" the system in one direction.
What kind of jurors do jury consultants and thus defense attorneys prefer in homicide cases? Perhaps better not to offend by looking instead at who usually doesn't get selected: College graduates especially those with graduate degrees. The more years you were in college the lower the chance a jury consultant wants you for that jury. Firemen are out as are police officers. They prefer to keep Republicans out and members of the NRA. If you own or have owned several successful companies you won't be selected. If you have a job where you manage a lot of people and need to make difficult decisions everyday, they don't want you and the same goes for human resource officers for large firms.
If you read Scientific American, Nature, Science, The Economist, or International Affairs, you need not worry. I could go on and on. One could argue, perhaps they just don't want to burden these already busy folks? Interesting argument - but it is vacuous. For in fact, as you read the qualities of those that defense wants off the jury, we get a sense for the kinds of folks whom they prefer.
One more thing and this is important, jury consultants don't want leaders on that jury. The Casey Anthony case is just such an example. In this case, the jury was selected from Pinellas County, rather than Orange County (where the trial took place), in order to pick a more unbiased jury. Pinellas County arguably has one of the largest concentrations of retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, military officers) in the country and yet none made the jury.
You never hear of a Captain or a Major or a Colonel (even retirees) serving on a jury where a jury consultant is involved - especially in homicide cases. Here are people accustomed to making command decisions, who know how to think quickly and decisively, but they are weeded out. Why? For the very traits that make them special: they have high situational awareness, they can think and size up individuals quickly, and they know how to lead. Which is why, in the OJ Simpson case, one of the jury voir dire questions was: "Do you seek out positions of leadership? (Please check answer) Always? Often? Seldom? Never?" Incidentally, those who have served as officers most likely also know the distinctive odor of decomposing bodies and how it is different from mere garbage.
Getting back to those they don't like. If you are in a job where you are used to doing high-level cognitive tasks, where decisions require intellectual rigor, they don't want you either. They don't want people who are willing to work hard to connect the dots. Also if you are an independent thinker, no need to worry - people who prefer consensus and harmony will more likely be selected. Obviously no defense attorney or jury consultant is going to get exactly what they want, but they will try. And of course, it only takes on juror to derail a conviction.
It is said that in the Casey Anthony case we should not blame the jurors. I agree - we shouldn't. That is like buying lemmings as pets and then being surprised when they act lemming like. Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected
Thank you and interesting history on how jurys once operated. So why couldn’t we have committees, thus the attorneys would be out of the process? Of course we’d run into the same thing the Supreme court does in their appointments but it would likely be better than attorney’s determining the jurors.
Casey does have strong control of her emotions when it is advantageous for her that she does. There’s a video of her response when her mother first took the stand. Having not seen her mom for some time Casey was definately impacted by seeing her....but then you see her immmediately shut that down...and begin writing, which I think her writing was simply a means of “escape” during the court proceedings and helped her regain control. It’s quite evident in that video.
Again, if she was drugged before court proceedings, and likely I think, it would be low dosage.
WOW! What a story!
The prosecution couldn’t even prove how the girl died.
- - - - -
They didn’t need to prove exactly HOW (the details), just that she is dead and that her mother was culpable. Failure to report is pretty strong circumstantial evidence.
The jury failed big time on this case, but then again what can you expect when the defense works so hard at getting idiots on a jury?
Welcome to my world, lol. Between the two of us, everything at our house is a history lesson. Of course, the kids in town who like school and learning usually come over to hang out just for that reason. :)
One small reform might be just to limit the number of jurors who can be removed from a panel. That would mean that those removed “for cause” would really have a reason they ought to be removed, not just because they ‘know too much’ about a subject likely to come up at trial.
Might be helpful...is there no limit at this time? BTW where/what is the pool they draw jurors from? Not sure I understand where exactly selection begins and or who determines "potential" jurors before they begin the process with attorneys.
Oh golly, sounds like never a dull moment at your place! It’s encouraging to hear kids want to hang out where history and facts can be known...thanks for mentioning that.
The jury of peers, as well as the concept of innocent before being proven guilty, and some other key concepts goes back even further, to the Germanic tribes and disputes between warriors.
The Germanic tribes had many parallels to Native American tribes, both of whom had chiefs with no particular authority other than the number and loyalty of their followers. If they felt like following, they did, for as long as they saw fit.
To avoid duels to decide disputes, and resultant familial blood feuds, a chief would intervene, but because he would not know particular circumstances of an argument, a panel of warriors would reach a consensus as to which side of the dispute should prevail. Then the authority of the chief would determine compensation.
This contrasted markedly with Roman law, yet in the migration to Britain became the basis of Common law. For its part, Roman law remained behind, and was eventually reconstructed in Napoleonic law, then finally the Code Civil that exists today.
The EU is utterly dominated by the Code Civil, which permeates middle European culture. But it runs headlong into Common law and the evolved Nordic Viking law, whose cultures are equally permeated with their own principles. And despite the willingness of the British and Norse governments to try and rewrite their culture, things like the Magna Carta cannot be easily dispensed with by the gray men in Brussels and their accomplices.
Well, this defies reality if true.
“”Notice that the name Caylee is a combination of Casey + Lee””
Supposedly a good friend of Casey’s - I think at one point they called her the “godmother” - has a name that was used for Caylee. It was a strange name so it didn’t stick in my mind.
Each jurisdiction has its own procedures. For example, the rules for your local state court and your local federal court are likely to be vastly different. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are nation-wide for lawsuits in federal courts, but each state will have its own rules, code, or canons to follow.
Occasionally, public input on proposed rule changes are announced. This might be a good opportunity to put your two cents’ worth in, if you have a concrete reform, or a question you can’t seem to get answered any other way. You might also want to see your state representative, since they’re the ones who have to vote to approve changes.
Moral: never underestimate a middle-aged woman on a mission. Of course, I’m long past the “middle” part now. ;)
Bizarre. I saw another story claiming that Casey was hiding on Geraldo’s boat.
Geez.
Radar-on-Line and the National Enquirer will track her down.
Casey Anthony Hiding Out On Geraldo Rivera’s Yacht? ‘Untrue!’ Says His BrotherCasey Anthony Hiding Out On Geraldo Rivera’s Yacht? ‘Untrue!’ Says His Brother
MizSterious wrote:
“I think this goes well beyond the Casey Anthony case. The absolutely horrifying thought is that if these people are representative of a lot of people, this country is truly doomed.”
I have, myself, come to that conclusion, we’re doomed. Stupid has become the majority. I’m totally disgusted by the news media(including FOX) chasing this piece of scum around, trying to find out where she is and what she’s doing. How sad a commentary on the mindset of what was once the greatest nation on earth. The only comfort I can take is that every person who profits from this fiasco of a miscarriage of justice, every reporter who gives attention to this piece of offal, every publisher and news outlet who pays her blood money for an interview or a book deal, is guilty of Caylee Anthony’s blood and will share in the ultimate punishment. That goes for every one of those PC, Liberal jury tools. Although justice for all of them may be delayed it will surely come.
The fiddle music is loud in my ears and I smell smoke. I really believe the point of no return has been reached for our country. If Casey Anthony did anything for anyone, it was to make that fact clear. I think “The Criminal Justice System” has become just that in a litteral sense. All rights, priviliges and protections are for the wrong-doers, not the law-abiding citizen. For those who have forgotten or have never seen the movie “The Devil’s Advocate”, it would be worth another viewing. It’s absolutely prophetic in its content. For this reason, in it’s day, an attempt was made to keep it from being released.
I thought of Al Pacino every time Baez opened his mouth.
Thank you MrReagannaut... I would have thought there was an overall set of procedures and rules all states would follow. That just makes it all the more confusing IMO. No consistancy leaves each open to corrupt the system all the more, though I understand why each state and jurisdiction would want it’s own.
Thanks again....
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.