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
If a body is tossed in a swamp with duct tape around its face and the DNA degrades, is is still a murder? Apparently this bunch couldn't wrap their pea-brains around that concept.
Oh wait, they could...George Anthony did it.
Good article. They chose in this case the lowest common denominator they had.
Did the case have a medical issue?
MITOchondrial DNA.
The Defense called her a slut, the Prosecution said she wanted to party, which was what people her age did, yet the alternate juror who spoke completely confused the two and said he was young and liked to party and there was nothing wrong with that. What a moron.
Very interesting post....and certainly supports my take on the matter of jurors in the Casey trial...and concerns about attorneys having a say in appointing jurors.
I know that Casey was known to ask for sedatives while in jail. And might explain her controlled demeaner throughout the trial. For a woman known to not have control of her emotions she certainly had no problem doing so during the trial...might very well have been drugged prior. And no wonder we thought the jurors were lamebrains...apparently they do pick those who are just that. Would your husband attorney agree with what's said in that post Reagan???
The case was a drunk driving case. Perhaps in some way it would have touched on medical issues.
Thanks for the ping and well worth the read.....great find MizSterious!!! Sheds some light on what many were thinking about these jurors and the selection process...Further it “evidences” many people were correct in how they saw this shameful verdict and those who brought it in.
Thanks...very good read!
Opinion ping to #46
I pinged hubby to respond directly.
I was just thinking. The list of characteristics this agent gave also suspiciously match our current President. I am sure we can find some Congress critters and business people in there too.
Well, the idea is to get jurors with no preconceived notions about the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, this does often translate into jurors with no ideas at all in their heads. Lawyers and judges have a tendency to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room, and this bias shows in jury selection. It looks like the prosecution was too smart for its own good in this case.
(It's also a good reason to vote for businessmen rather than lawyers, given a choice.)
I always thought she might have been drugged during the trial.
Breaking News: Casey Anthony places a call to 911 in fear of her life (Dispatcher) 911,What is your emergency? “Please help me, I have a bunch of people trying to kill me.” Okay ma’am, calm down. What is your name? “Casey Anthony.” Okay Miss Anthony try to stay calm, an officer will be there in 31 days, we are busy right now getting tattoos and partying.....
So true. I feel this article vindicates the public for our feeling regarding a murderer getting off. This is one of the best articles I have read on this case.
I’m certain whatever medication was given was measured doses as important she look reasonably alert. Enough that would temper any outbursts she might otherwise have given.
I heard a report she was very popular with the inmates. So no doubt her “charm” continues to work favorably for her even within a prison system. She’s a master at reading people very quickly and sizing them up...so am not surprised she was supported within the prison system.
Which begs to be answered just how they can rightly determine if or not a juror has preconceived notions, let alone an ability to comprehend the seriousness of the task at hand...and how to arrive at a conclusion.
It doesn't appear to me they had a sense of these nor the ability to arrive at a fair conclusion. Two of the jurors specifically stated judgment of Casey was up to God and not to man, and yet they were selected...who certainly would not have likely given a judgment of guilty though a not guilty vote still would have been a judgment call on their part. But the jury then began deliberations with two already determined they would not vote for a death penalty.
One of Casey’s tricks which is quite obvious is the way she always is doing nice things for people. I believe she does this to deflect any questions asked of her.
Thanks....as you know I have great concerns over how jurors are selected and especially that the lawyers have a great role in that. Common sense says they would do all possible to select those most favorable for their side...even without a guarantee how they would actually vote it does seem quite possible this could be as effective as Gerrymandering is when it’s used for voters.
I have known people such as this who use this tactic as a means of control and manipulation. In Casey's case I believe definately so. She never had money of her own but used others people money to accomplish her plans. So her heart is far from the actual pupose which she does these things.
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.