The prosecution would not have won this case even if Baez had stood up to begin and said "the defense rests".
Have you ever been on a criminal jury?
I have. It's true, as the case starts, you do wonder what actually happened, and, just like the idiots watching on cable, you begin to form theories.
But that's not why you are there. You are not there to stand up for Caylee. You are not there to deduce what might have happened.
You are there to try certain facts, and, if the judge does his job, to determine if the tried facts, if proven, meet the State's burden.
That did not happen in this case. The required elements of the charged offenses were not proven by the State, and it wasn't even hard for the jury to determine that.
They would have reached the same verdict if Baez hadn't said a word.
I disagree.
My wife and her father were so in to this case. In fact, when the verdict was read, they both were actually angry.
From time to time when I'd chime in through the trial casting doubt that the prosecution has actually proven this or a that, they'd get annoyed with me.
Casey is responsible for this sweet child's death. I think most would agree.
The prosecution did a poor job proving 1st degree, premeditated murder, child abuse and manslaughter.
Don't attack the defense team, they did exactly what they are hired to do, defend their client vigorously.
I read here about the crummy job Baez did during the trial and closing arguments.
Huh? He won. Through the trial, it may have seemed Baez was inept or lacked procedural savvy.
Like the verdict or not, Baez defended his client and won.
It's very sad cause we all know Casey had something to do with the death.
I gotta say though, if I were on trial for anything, doesn't matter the circumstances, I'd expect no less from my personal atty.
No, I’ve never been on a criminal jury so can only imagine the burden that would weigh on me as a juror.
Clearly the job of a juror is not to “stand up for” the victim- it’s to determine the facts of the case as presented. I believe the state met the burden of manslaughter at the least. I never believed this was a capital case- and still had some doubts at the end- however those doubts of mine met the reasonable definition as I perceive it’s intended.
From the little bit I heard from the alternate juror- it’s my belief the jury barely considered the case put forth by the state and focused on the defense case instead. Of course I don’t KNOW that- it’s just a hunch.
But then again- I’m one of “the idiots watching on cable” as you say.
“You are not there to deduce what might have happened.”
Like hell you aren’t. Deductive reasoning is unavoidable, particularly in a criminal trial. Unfortuantely, a lack of deductive reasoning is a major problem in this country. One can’t suspend their deductive reasoning abilities at the courthouse door.