Posted on 07/06/2011 8:04:09 AM PDT by 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.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at cnews.canoe.ca ...
Joy Behar: I am shocked by the #caseyanthonyverdict. Though I can't say this is the first time Florida screwed up on an important vote. #HLN
You are in bad company on this one.
Isn’t it amazing that there are so many Freepers saying that Casey probably had something to do with the death, but the jury decided to acquit, and even though justice was not done and a murderer walked free, that this is a VICTORY for the justice system?
Welcome to the Idiocracy.
Seems to me, you keep bad company if you read Behar’s tweets....or care what she thinks....
I seriously doubt any of the jurors were in public schools since Obama was elected.
Wow, you much really think a person keeps bad company, then, if they agree with her.
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
...Marsha Clark
They were too lazy to review the evidence and too stupid too understand the concept of “reasonable doubt”.
Because they are not you.
I hate to even think that it was a rigged jury.....but they were shipped in....the trial wasn't moved.
The prosecution DID go after Manslaughter, among other homicide choices. Not enough attention? Even the defense suggested it! The jury ignored EVERY CHARGE, not simply murder one.
>>I think she had something to do with the death but I could see nothing solid. This convicting on circumstantial evidence...<<
Circumstantial evidence is used to convict in an extremely high percentage of cases in the world, since the beginning of jurisprudence, and rightly so.
I’m astounded that people throw around the term “circumstantial evidence” as if it were some sort of second-rate, unreliable evidence.
Such a misunderstanding and ignorance of the law is prevalent, however, as demonstrated yesterday.
You say that you think she had something to do with the death? Me too. I think she killed her baby.
So let’s recognize this for what it is, not some judicial “victory” to be “celebrated.” There are Freepers taunting other Freepers that this is a VICTORY, high-fiving, and arrogantly rubbing it in everyone’s faces.
This is no victory. It is a DEFEAT for justice, Justice was not served. Just because the guilty will necessarily go free on occasion, doesn’t mean it’s a GOOD THING.
It’s not.
There was evidence "pointing" to Casie's guilt. The defense brought in chaos, nothing more, to confuse the jury. For example, the professionals smelt the dead body that was in the car. Some others around the car did not, but they weren't smelling it and looking for evidence, either.
Tell me, the last time you were at a relatives house - did you notice their garage smelling at all, or was it so irrelevant at the time you didn't bother to make a note of it? What exactly did you relatives garbage smell like? Can you remember? Did you bother to make a mental note of it? What if today you were asked to testify, under oath, about that garbage.
This is the type of "proof" the defense used to debunk the experts, to make the experts "probably" wrong, so the jury must declare the mother innocent because of doubt. The uninformed jury, not taking any circumstances into account or using common sense (probably because the defenses jury coach told them they couldn't), took this as some kind of "proof" the car may not have smelled bad.
I don't believe the jury knew common sense was valid, necessary, and very, very important.
FIRST TIME EVER....that a jury has been brought into that county to try a local case.
Remember also, that the Judge Perry was NOT the original judge.
Just a little curious: how many people have “dodged” jury duty when they’ve been called for it?
Brilliant post!
The jury obviously didn’t understand the concept of circumstantial evidence and the validity of it.
<><><><<
I have run your statement through a translator, and it came out thusly: “The jury obviously doesn’t understand and use circumstantial evidence in this case like I would have used it.”
Of course, the fact that they were there every day, for every minute of the testimony, and you were, what?, listening to Nancy Grace.
"By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. it is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offenses, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution, which does not amount to an element, need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if, on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty."
I have also always felt that the circumstantial evidence instruction was very illuminating and read that to her as well ...
"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence which tends directly to prove or disprove a fact in issue. If a fact in issue was whether it rained during the evening, testimony by a witness that he or she saw it rain would be direct evidence that it rained. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove some other fact from which, either alone or together with some other facts or circumstances, you may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue. If there was evidence that the street was wet in the morning, that would be circumstantial evidence from which might reasonably infer that it rained during the night in the absence of any intervening circumstance or fact. There is no general rule for determining or comparing the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value you believe it deserves."
even though prosecutors were forced to rely largely on circumstantial evidence
...does this mental retard (the writer of this article) think that "circumstantial evidence" means "lack of evidence"?
Does this mental retard not know that MOST convictions come from "circumstantial evidence"?
Does this mental retard think that only murders committed on television, with the cameras rolling, are the only cases with "proper evidence"?
And lastly, did this mental retard get paid for writing this tripe?
Reasonable 'doubt' does not mean you have to exclude circumstantial evidence because, after all, 'anything' is possible. My opinion is that many jurors screw this standard of proof up.
To summarize Marsha Clark:
DAMN JURIES!
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.