Posted on 07/12/2011 4:09:56 PM PDT by walsh
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Casey Anthony was acquitted last week in state court of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
Now, a new website, change.org, is petitioning to have Anthony tried for the same crimes, but this time in federal court. It's called the dual sovereignty rule.
"The double jeopardy clause has been interpreted to allow two prosecutions as long as they're by different sovereigns," said B.J. Priester, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
I am curious to hear more about the sort of glossed over “jury tampering” allegation...
Casey had sole custody of her child. Casey and Caylee were living in the Grandparents home.
The Grandparents paid for both of them.
Pretty sad when the Grandmother has to try and find her daughter only to find out her grandchild is missing, supposedly kidnapped by a nanny 31 days earlier
It was all a Casey lie to cover for the killing of her daughter.
I was referring to the acquittal as a travesty. If I were a juror I would have voted to convict, on the following grounds:
1. The disposal of the body that neatly destroyed evidence- that was no accident;
2. The 30 days before the authorities were notified- that was no accident;
3. The partying- that tells me that she wasn’t the good mother that many thought she was;
4. The lying- that tells me she was actively trying to avoid being found out.
Those things indicate to me about 80% likelihood of guilt; I find that beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think the accused did have a motive- no further impediment to her hard-partying skank lifestyle. Notice I didn’t need 100%- the jury apparently did, and so she walked.
As far as the trial, I guess you could count it a success- all the procedures were followed, due process observed, all the things that delight the lawyers done. In my eyes a failure- 12 people failed to see what I think obvious. Because I think a murderer walked, I’ll call it a travesty.
Who?
“Actually, I followed quite closely and have read testimony.”
I have in my 65 years, been on numerous juries. In all cases I have been involved in, the benefit of the doubt has always gone to the state. For an innocent person to be acquitted is quite rare. Most jurist will simply go along with the state says and convict.
It strikes me odd that all voted to acquit. It’s not as uncommon to get a hung jury, but an acquittal?
There were no racial overtones to this trial, and no one wants to see a kid murdered or would it be believable that they would want to see the murderer of a kid go free.
And ya KNOW this is commerce because Ms. Anthony might write a best seller book about it!
It seems unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
“Those things indicate to me about 80% likelihood of guilt”
I’m sorry, if you are looking to put someone to death, you need more than 80%. That would imply that 20% of those executed were innocent...
That’s not acceptable.
One thing that might have taken the jury aback regarding the state is that the argument phase reportedly finished with a prosecutor’s rebuttal to the defense’s summation. “Everybody knows” the defendant is expected to have the (time-wise) last word. It hit me as odd.
She did speak with the FBI. There is a recording of at least one conversation with an FBI agent on the evidence archive page at WFTV.com.
It was BS for the Rodney King cops and it will be BS for Anthony. Just more power creep from the state, regardless of sovereignty level.
Why not start with township, to county to state to FEDs. Uh-unh.
Agreed. Some FReepers are no better than the demoncraps.
Didn’t she break a Federal law when she claimed Caylee was kidnapped (Federal Crime) when she KNEW Caylee was already dead?
I’m sorry, if you are looking to put someone to death, you need more than 80%. That would imply that 20% of those executed were innocent...
That’s not acceptable.
Agreed. If I think there is a 1-in-5 chance that the defendant did not commit the crime, I'd have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.
“Agreed. If I think there is a 1-in-5 chance that the defendant did not commit the crime”
Seems to me that the standard must be better than 1 in 12, since there are 12 jurors and one holdout will prevent an acquittal or a conviction.
Just about everything breaks some kind of law.
Oh. Well then.
I stand corrected. Thank you very much. I have read so much my brain is MUSH. :)
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.