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.
Just as disgusting as the verdict is, I read this morning that some of the jurors have hired PR Firms and are willing to talk for 5 figures.
How many books will be written by the “jurors”? It is much more sensational with a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that we are sunk that low or are we that dumbed down?
I don’t think it’s saying that people outside the jury are simpletons, I think it’s saying they have a different pool of information. It’s like the old parable of the blind men and the elephant, everybody has their information and nobody has the other people’s information so everybody draws their own conclusions which are RIGHT with their information, but not necessarily right with the big picture.
People watching it on TV got the constant drumbeat that she was guilty and her lawyers idiots. People in the jury box didn’t get any of that, but they were in a position to have nothing better to pay attention to when the prosecutors closing arguments admitted they didn’t know how or when the kid died, and went with the broad “somebody in that house killed her” which kind of admits he’s not really sure it was Casey. Is somebody on one side of the equation smarter than the other? No, they have different sets of information, and drew conclusions that were right with THEIR information. Who’s right in the big picture we don’t know, but it is very logical for the TV audience and the jury to draw vastly different conclusions.
“You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence”
Was there any evidence that said;
A) This little girl was murdered.
B) How she was murdered.
C) Why she was murdered.
or
D) That her mother murdered her.
You are mistaken. She was not, and she still faces $4,000 in fines
I read the headline, but never got around reading the article. I did see a video though where they were running all around in the Today show. But then those kids are only 2 years old and you don’t get kids that age sit still
Oh well true they got her for lying to the cops. Her first porn shoot will cover the costs for that.
Who did it? Nobody did; the child drove herself to the swamp and jumped it.. clearly a suicide.
The defense claimed the child went missing at the Anthony home and George found her in the pool...so they did counter the story that she was the only one with the child when whatever happened. So many stories, there was evidence but not hard evidence of WHO did what. I am convinced Casey is responsible for whatever happened to that baby and if I was on the jury we would still be there if I hadn’t convinced the others to at least convict her for the child abuse charge. Going partying may not prove you murdered your child, but going partying while your child is “missing” is darn sure child abuse. If she already knew her child was dead then she played some part in it- she was guilty of some of the charges in any case.
The latest I heard is the jury was originally split 6-6 on guilty...then the six that wanted to convict her caved...in just a few hours!! No guts!! I would have hung that jury if I had to but it seems they just wanted to go home. I don’t even blame the 6 that did not want to convict her to begin with, they likely did feel there was reasonable doubt. The 6 that did not have reasonable doubt to begin with should have stuck to their guns and made the other 6 stay until they went over everything and either came up with a guilty verdict or hung.
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — June 16, 2008: 2-year-old Caylee Anthony is last seen alive leaving the home of her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony, along with her mother Casey.
June 18, 2008: Casey Anthony borrows a shovel from Brian Burner, a neighbor of George and Cindy Anthony. Burner says that Anthony returned it an hour later.
June 19, 2008: Casey Anthony goes with boyfriend Tony Lazzaro to help him look for an apartment.
June 20, 2008: Casey Anthony is captured in various photos partying at Fusion nightclub and participating in a "hard body contest."
June 23, 2008: Casey Anthony and her boyfriend, Lazzaro, break into a shed at the Anthony family home to borrow her father's gas cans to fill her car, which had run empty.
June 24, 2008: Casey Anthony gets into a fight with George Anthony about the gas and she storms out of the home. She tells her father that Caylee is with the babysitter, Zanny.
June 25, 2008: Cell phone records show she was in the area of her parents' home.
June 28, 2008: Casey Anthony's car is towed from the parking lot of a check cashing store after a supervisor calls to report it abandoned.
June 30, 2008: Casey Anthony is captured in surveillance videos shopping at JC Penney and Target.
July 1, 2008: Surveillance video shows Casey Anthony back in JC Penney buying more clothes.
July 10, 2008: Casey Anthony is recorded in surveillance video at Target.
July 12, 2008: Casey Anthony is seen in surveillance video at Winn-Dixie
July 15, 2008: Casey Anthony is recorded in Blockbuster Video, Bank of America and Winn-Dixie surveillance videos.
July 15, 2008: George and Cindy Anthony pick up Casey's car from a tow yard. George Anthony observes a strong odor emanating from the vehicle. Later, back at the Anthony family home, Casey tells her mother and brother, Lee Anthony, that she hasn't seen Caylee in a month and that a babysitter named Zanaida Fernandez Gonzalez (Zanny) kidnapped her.
July 15-16: Casey Anthony takes police to the last place she says she saw Caylee. It turns out to be a vacant apartment. Authorities also take her to Universal Studios where she said she worked, but supervisors there say she hasn't worked there in more than two years.
October 14, 2008: Casey Anthony indicted on charges of first-degree murder, along with aggravated manslaughter, aggravated child abuse and four counts of lying to police.
Dec. 11, 2008: The skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony are discovered in a wooded area not far from the Anthony family home.
May 9, 2011: Jury selection begins in Clearwater for Casey Anthony's murder trial
. May 24, 2011: Trial begins in Orlando. The prosecution shows jurors a photo during opening statements of Caylee Anthony alive and smiling, along with a picture of the girl's skull as it was found in 2008. They say Anthony used duct tape to suffocate her. The defense contends the child actually drowned in her grandparents' swimming pool.
July 5, 2011: Casey Anthony acquitted of murdering Caylee but convicted of lying to police.
I don’t know when they started allowing so much lawyer involvement in the selection process (maybe they always have?) it’s hard to find information. But to hire people to help?
-- snip --
On August 11, 12, and 13, 2008, tips of a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence were called in to police by a meter reader, Roy Kronk. However, a search was not conducted at that time. After another report from the same man on December 11, 2008, human remains were found in a plastic bag. Duct tape was found on the face of the skull.[33] On December 12, the remains were tentatively identified as Caylee's
On December 15, WFTV reported that more bones were found in the wooded area near the spot where the remains had initially been discovered.[35] On December 19, 2008, medical examiner Jan Garavaglia confirmed that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony. The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined.
Kind of crazy. If you really think you are incapable of judging other people you would not be fit for jury duty.
Her mother is the one who did not call the cops for a month when her child is missing. Also misdirected the cops to keep them from finding the child. If she didn’t kill the child she bloody well knows who did. Nobody in their right minds would take a drowned child and toss it in swamp; it isn’t a crime for an accident to happen.. who would do such a thing, even these nutballs? She did it or covered it up.
We also don’t know what the discussions inside the jury room went like. I recall hearing that initially 2 people did not vote for acquittal. If that is correct, they changed their mind. We won’t ever know what was said that changed it, but clearly, it wasn’t completely cut and dried.
Thank you.
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.