Anthony verdict a victory for 'reasonable doubt'

Reuters via Sun Media ^ | 2011-07-06 | Alex Dobuzinskis

[Clive]

LOS ANGELESM - The not guilty verdict for Casey Anthony on Tuesday also can be seen as a victory for the U.S. justice system, despite strong public opinion that she killed her 2 year-old daughter, legal experts said.

A Florida jury cleared Anthony of the murder charge she faced in the 2008 death of her daughter, Caylee, but found her guilty of lying to police about the incident.

A number of media commentators had expected Anthony to be found guilty of murder in the case, even though prosecutors were forced to rely largely on circumstantial evidence.

Doug Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, said popular opinion came to the conclusion the 25 year-old Anthony was guilty, but that jurors must hold to a higher standard than the average citizen watching on TV.

That standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the

actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability."

Josh Niewoehner, a Chicago attorney who worked on the successful defence of R&B singer R. Kelly against charges of child pornography, said he welcomed the Anthony verdict.

"I commend the jurors for listening to the evidence and not listening to the media," Niewoehner said.

"It's a good day for justice in the sense that you have to prove every element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt," he added.

The case against Anthony, who had faced the possibility of the death penalty if found guilty of murdering her daughter, was short on forensic evidence, such as Caylee's time or manner of death, Berman said.

[...]

[Clive]

-

[Clive]

OOPS, I pinged my Canada list by mistake. The only connection to Canada is that I picked up the article from the Sun Media web site.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

“O.J. acquittal a victory for U.S. justice system”

Let’s all celebrate the sacred and precious right of the guilty to go free!

[Paleo Conservative]

No, this is unreasonable doubt.

[blackdog]

Any trial which is taking place should be restricted in attempts to turn news reporting into telethons. Perhaps limiting coverage to facts of the trial instead of thousands of consultant entertainers offering their "expert opinions" on the case, 24/7 on every news network?

It's just wrong..............

[clamper1797]

Didn't realize that the jury also included all the freepers who find her guilty ... without sitting on the jury. Perhaps we should all form a lynch party.

She got a trial ... the jury who heard every moment of testimony found her not guilty END OF STORY. Don't blame the jury if the prosecutor did not prove the case.

[hecht]

So what about the child abuse charge? 31 days of neglect? What reasonable doubt was there for that count?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

In the age of omnipresent recording technology and DNA analysis, “reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean what it used to.

[Retired Greyhound]

Better duck, Clive.

An alarming number of FReepers have become anti-liberty on this one, and would rather see the State’s burden to imprison and execute made easier.

I’m willing to let guilty people walk free if it will prevent innocent people from being convicted. It’s a trade-off a free society must make.

[Retired Greyhound]

Yup. Can’t believe FR has gone this direction.

Might as well drop the word “free” from Free Republic.

[concerned about politics]

even though prosecutors were forced to rely largely on circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is the corner stone of our justice system. Cayce was the last to see the child. She had motive. She had opportunity. She had the behavior. She was the only one happy about it and the only one who benefited by it. And this time, there was actually a dead body!

The key word in "reasonable doubt" is "reasonable."

There was no video of Susan Smith pushing her car full of children into the water. There was no absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof. Maybe it was a car jacking. Maybe the car rolled into the water. We'll never really know, right? No one can prove it was actually she who pushed the car into the water, but the circumstances surrounding the incident pointed strait to her, just as the death of little Caylee pointed straight to her mother.

This is not a time to celebrate of our justice system. It's a time to mourn over it's occasional flaws.

[ArrogantBustard]

Let’s all celebrate the sacred and precious right of the guilty to go free!

No.

Let's all celebrate the sacred and precious right of the innocent not to be railroaded by a government that doesn't have to prove its case.

[Mr. K]

This is a victory for stupidity only

Reasonbable doubt is now ANY REAL OR IMAGINARY doubt

Ciscumstantial evidence is wrongly interpreted as ‘not useful’.

Judges need to start instructing juries better on reasonable AND unreasonable doubt

And that circumstantial evidens IS factually correct info. (If a person is alone in a room with no other doors or windows, and you hear a scream you can be 100% certain it was him, even thought all your evidence is ‘circumstantial’)

[lewislynn]

Doubt can't be measured. There is no law requiring anyone be convicted on "beyond (a group's or the public's) reasonable doubt".

This was a victory for the constitution...innocent untill PROVEN guilty.

A guilty verdict would have been a victory for the liberal media everyone here apparently pretends to hate.

[PeanutbutterandJellybean]

So is this going to boil down on how a juror defines the word, reasonable? Kind of reminds me of, “depends on what the meaning of is, is.” Yes, the case was short on forensic evidence, but someone please explain on how Anthony didn't even get charged with child neglect when her two year old was missing for a month before she reported it? The mere fact that a two year old toddler is missing for an entire month while mommy is out having a grand time, isn't a big red flag that something is terribly wrong? Yesterdays verdict was a travesty of justice.

[concerned about politics]

the jury who heard every moment of testimony found her not guilty END OF STORY. Don't blame the jury if the prosecutor did not prove the case.

The jury obviously didn't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence and the validity of it. They thought they were actors in a CSI episode, and felt they actually had to see film footage of the incident put up on you tube in order to convict her.

The problem with our electoral system is an uninformed citizenry. The problem with our judicial system is the same.

[JPG]

IMO, many jury-sitting Obama voters believe that having a ‘reasonable doubt’ means that you must have ‘no doubt’ in order to convict. No Obama voters should be allowed to sit on a jury. They've already shown themselves to be irrational.

[ZX12R]

This is not a time to celebrate of our justice system. It's a time to mourn over it's occasional flaws.

I am in mourning, surrounded by puzzlement, and devoid of understanding. My prayers are that it will remain very occasional. What an injustice to that little girl. I suppose now, thanks to the jury, she will simply be forgotten about. The killer will never be brought to justice now, too bad, how sad I guess.

[Salgak]

Actually, that’s a design feature: “Better to let a guilty man go free, than to convict an innocent man”. Although we’ve managed to convict plenty of innocent folks over the years. . .