Posted on 07/10/2011 8:46:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Casey Anthony's acquittal of the killing of her precious child, Caylee, has shocked the nation. Many who watched the trial on TV – and who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence, the punditry of various talking heads, or the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony – have been critical of the jury's verdict. Among those most vehement in their condemnation of the jury are TV notables Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace. Their indignation is shared by those who feel the verdict represented a gross miscarriage of justice.
Cases like this call the value of trial by jury into question for some. But critics should take some important points into consideration: In American jurisprudence, an accused wrongdoer is presumed innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The jury is not permitted to consider evidence that doesn't reach a certain threshold of reliability and they aren't permitted to take into account matters outside the evidence. They aren't entitled to discuss the case among themselves, or even form an opinion about the case, until all the evidence is in. They can't discuss the case with anyone other than their fellow jurors, and if any reasonable doubt exists about the crime(s) charged, they cannot convict. It is not enough for the jury to "know" that the accused is guilty as charged. The charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most freedom loving people agree that these are important safeguards which must be met before one accused of a crime can be deprived of their life or liberty.
Trial by jury is not a recent phenomenon. It dates back over a thousand years, and its use has been documented in a variety of civilizations. The right to trial by jury has been particularly prominent in the American system of law and justice. When the Founders enumerated their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, King George's denial to the colonists of the right to trial by jury was in the forefront of their complaints. George Mason famously refused to sign the Constitution unless the right to trial by jury was made explicit. Thomas Jefferson made clear the value he placed on juries when he said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the right to trial by jury is expressly referenced in not one, but three of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
As Americans, we tend to take the right to trial by jury for granted; but it should not difficult to imagine the horror of living in a society in which the State possesses absolute power. Millions of people around the world live in societies that don't allow for trial by jury. When they are accused of wrongdoing, they aren't afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. No jury of their peers decides their guilt or innocence. Their lives and freedom are subject to the whims of those who hold power. Their tribunals – if they exist at all – are mere kangaroo courts which serve only as an eye wash. "Verdict first, trial later" is their modus operandi. Even here in America there was a time when perverted justice prevailed, when the word of a single white man could spell death for a politically and legally powerless African American.
This is why the right to trial by jury is essential.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that the collective judgment of ordinary people, while not perfect, is the most reliable, most just method of resolving conflicts in America's courtrooms. Does the jury system and its protections mean that sometimes the guilty will go free? The answer is yes. Alan Dershowitz addressed this in a recent article discussing the Casey Anthony verdict:
"For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham's argument with God about the sinners of Sodom. Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged."
A justice system that allows for the possibility of the guilty going free is undoubtedly unpalatable for those who wish to see Caylee Anthony's death avenged, but it is a standard that recognizes and upholds the notion that life and liberty should not be deprived without due process of law. It's not a perfect system, but none better has yet been devised by man.
Too bad O.J. is in jail, he and Casey would make a cute couple...
According to Jury No#2 , who opined over the fact Casey got off. The jury was evenly divided up until about noon Tuesday when the stronghold of six began to weaken.....they brought the verdict in less hten three hours later....so in those three hours alone evidence should have been requested....but not even a photo or anything was. Which again this would indicate to me in those three or so hours the pressure was on to get the six to fold...and they did.
Juror No. 2 was the last to fold....and I doubt very much he even knew he could have hung that Jury.,,and Casey would have to be re-tried. He simply didn’t understand the power he had nor the responsibility to do this right....nor the capability.
Who determines the size of the pool.....where are they pulled from..... and who determines/excuses those who want to get out of serving?
I'm not going to list all the pieces here. No doubt someone else already has.
I think the flawed premise behind your question is the idea that there had to be some scientific forensic evidence that precisely identified Casey as the killer. There was none that did that, but there was plenty of evidence that Casey murdered the child.
The jury's job was to consider all the evidence and decide whether there was any reasonable doubt (not irrational doubt) that anything else could have happened. Casey killing this child was the ONLY reasonable explantion, period. That's why there was no reasonable doubt.
You don't need DNA or a fingerprint in the right place to get there. That's just wanting the forensic lab to do the job for you. Yes, it's great when we can get that kind of evidence. But people were getting convicted for murder before anyone know what DNA and fingerprints were.
I don't know. I don't like the idea of professional juries. Professionals would get captured by the legal profession. It would be like a panel of 12 lawyers. There's a reason for a panel citizens.
But I can't think of a reason why the judge couldn't pick the jurors instead of the two sides. The lawyers end up eliminating a lot of quality people. If your client is guilty your not going to want someone too rational. If your case is weak your going to want someone you can sway. If the judge did it he would only have to decide whether someone could be fair and reasonable.
Most people just don’t even bother to show up for jury duty and it seems they don’t go after them either. I think we will have to enforce the requirements for jury duty, and then be strict about excusing anyone if we want to keep our system operating.
Didn’t take Baez long to find an agent....BUT it flatlined....interesting tidbit.
Jose Baez, Casey Anthony’s attorney, had a Hollywood agent for a few hours Thursday.
Now he doesn’t.
Jim Griffin of Paradigm would represent Baez and explore opportunities in publishing, motion pictures and television, according to several reports Thursday afternoon.
Paradigm later stressed in an internal message that:
“We have not and have NO INTENTION of signing Casey Anthony,”
Later Thursday, Deadline.com reported that Baez was no longer signed with Paradigm. An internal Paradigm memo said: ”Important Paradigm Update – We have informed Jose Baez tonight that we will not be representing him.” A Paradigm insider .... ”In the end it’s just not who we are.”
This is what I've been talking about. I'm sure the jury thought the same way. But this is wrong. One, "evidence" does not mean "proof". There certainly was lots of evidence that Casey killed that child. Her conduct was evidence.
You certainly can, and almost always have to, infer from the evidence to come to a verdict. That's what juries are supposed to do. There is no requirement, legal or logical, that there be scientific forensic proof of a specific act to find someone guilty of a crime. A jury is *supposed* to infer from the evidence and convict if there is no *reasonable* doubt (not irrational doubt) that the accused is guilty.
There is no other reasonable explantion for all the facts in this case except that Casey did it. When you go through it all, you look at the forensics, you look at her behavior, you look at everything, there is no other reasonable interpretation. That should equal a conviction. That is how it's supposed to work.
spotted relaxing poolside at a resort in Florida this morning
According to a witness, the Anthonys stayed by the pool for about two hours, trying to remain anonymous. They didn't interact with anyone, but once it became obvious people were starting to recognize them ... they took off.
Cindy tried to visit Casey in jail on Friday, but was turned away by Casey.
I appreciate the way you worded that. I agree completely.
Ergo our manmade system of justice is unjust.
When the verdict hit the fan, the players scattered like scalded cats. Nobody is going anywhere near Baez unless they’ve just killed their own kid, and need to get off.
The dynamic you related was interesting wasn’t it. Whoops!
I don’t think Baez helped his case any by coming out and insulting about 80% of the American populace just after the verdict. His “that’ll teach you” comment probably had people throwing bricks at their television sets.
Thanks CAWW.
IMO Cindy lied on the witness stand for Casey. I don’t think she was looking up chloroform or broken necks.
Now Casey won’t meet with her?
Wow. You know, sooner or later we’re going to get the full scoop on what really happened in this case. My guess is it’s going to be a lot sooner than we think.
Jerry Springer: I Would NEVER Interview Casey Anthony
Jerry Springer says the rumors his show offered Casey Anthony $1 million for an interview are “absolutely, unequivocally not true” — in fact, Jerry says he wouldn’t do it even if HE got paid the million bucks!
Jerry was his usual jovial self yesterday when he explained he thought Casey shouldn’t profit from what she did (or didn’t do). Jerry said very directly, “God as my witness, I would never interview her. You could pay me the million dollars, I wouldn’t do it.”
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/09/casey-anthony-jerry-springer-show-million-dollar-offer/
I haven’t followed the after trial hoopla. That information was new to me, and it is astounding.
How are the folks who continue to state there wasn’t enough evidence going to rectify this with their belief system?
I think it’s a crock of doo doo that Casey wants nothing to do with her parents. It seems more like a farce, orchestrated to keeep the lies of the dream team looking real for awhile. As soon as the uproar cools off, Casey will welcome George and Cindy back into her life, and they will gladly be there to enable her.
Not so sure the Jurors will stick their heads out for the most part. But then money talks.
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.