<p>
</p>
<p>They celebrated in a private business. It was a closed, private celebration.</p>
<p>Good. I assumed that it was in public, since there are/were photographs of the celebration circulating.</p>
<p>The defense celebration was in a local restaurant which was closed to the public for this private function. However, people were able to see in through the windows and pictures/video were taken of the defense celebration, and the actions are being critiqued that way. For example, there are reports that that video of the verdict was repeatedly played at the celebration and loud cheers erupted on each replay.</p>
<p>And why shouldn’t they celebrate when an innocent person gets her freedom?</p>
<p>Jeff Ashton will be on The View today.</p>
<p>In this state, if a person who is stopped on suspicion of drunk driving refuses to be tested, there are penalties and a presumption of guilt that come with that.</p>
<p>In the Casey Anthony case, there should have been a presumption of guilt attached to someone hiding a body until there was no longer tissue attached to help determine cause of death. Otherwise, everyone and anyone would be best served by disposing of a body whose death occurred under questionable circumstances until the body decomposed to such an extent that tissues could not be tested for cause of death. IF Lauren Spierer died in a manner that could cause legal issues for those with her, it could be argued that it is a smart strategy for those involved to dispose of the body versus coming clean with authorities and the family. (I am playing devil’s advocate now, of course, because my heart and sympathies are entirely with her family right now.)</p>
<p>I don’t think the Scott Peterson jury had any more evidence directly connecting that defendant to the death than the Casey Anthony jury did, yet the verdicts were completely opposite. His lies to his mistress saying his wife had died were not a lot different than her lies to her parents and authorities saying her daughter had been kidnapped – and that only after confronted about the girl being missing after 31 days of partying by her mother. So what was the difference? Was it because Casey Anthony is a young woman, a mother? Was it because the jury thought she was dumb enough to have panicked and hidden the body? Or was it because the jury really thought George Anthony was somehow involved in this?</p>
<p>Have not followed this case at all closely. In fact, have taken to switching the channel if it comes on the news. I have been really disgusted by the media behavior and have found myself questioning the seemingly universal belief of the mom’s guilt. It was a media circus. I think that if her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt then the jury would have found it so. I am glad she was found innocent if the prosecution did not make the case. That is our justice system.</p>
<p>My gut feeling is that the little girl was killed through some sort of household accident that was probably driven by adult (mom, grandparent) stupidity and neglect. Then there was an equally stupid effort to cover up. I have never quite been able to believe the mom planned and carried out the murder of her little girl. The mom’s crime is stupidity, not malicious homicide. The prosecution over reached. They could have probably gotten a guilty verdict for a much lesser charge.</p>
<p>In some ways this parallels the whole debacle with the rape charges against the French politician. How is it possible that our media and our prosecutors are behaving like idiots more and more. There seems to be very little nobility in those professions anymore.</p>
<p>Finally, executing this mom was never going to bring back the daughter. There is no “justice” out there for the little girl. She will always be a tragedy.</p>
<p>On the issue of credit for time served…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Casey was booked for only the felony charges and not the lying charges, there may be no credit since she would not have been incarcerated pre-trial for the lying charges…</p>
<p>
The alternate juror said the jury believed the defenses story about the drowning and that George was involved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if they turned the TV on, then yes it was repeated over and over again. And frankly, I have no problem with the cheering myself.</p>
<p>For those who think George &/or Cindy was involved in Caylee’s death or disposal – please explain why G & C frantically called Casey for a month asking about Caylee, called Casey’s friends when Casey failed to return their calls, and went searching for Casey and Caylee when Casey failed to let them see or talk with Caylee. And why on earth would they call the police when they found Casey’s abandoned car and opened the trunk?</p>
<p>And for those who believe Casey’s claim that she was abused by George – please explain why Casey would allow her daughter to be in the care of a man she knew was an abuser?</p>
<p>There is research that the majority of jurors make up their minds in opening statements. That is why Baez’ gamble of using a junk opening worked. Even though there wasn’t a shred of evidence of abuse or drowning, Baez said it and the jury was very likely unable to follow the law and ignore it. I wish there were sanctions for presenting scenarios in an opening statement for which there is no evidence to back them up. It is unethical but not subject to sanction. The belief among many lawyers is that juries will punish the side that lies in opening statements, but they may have to rethink that. Perhaps there are cases in which it is worth the risk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is false. It is not a presumption of guilt. It is a violation of the implied consent law.</p>
<p>Florida Rule Chapter 11D8 - First offense (refusal) is a lengthened suspension period, second offense is a misdemeanor which is why they arrest you. Has no legal bearing on your guilt or innocence.</p>
<p>It does NOT mean you are guilty. You could be sober and easily beat the DUI charge. You still pay for violating Implied Consent.</p>
<p>There is NO point in the American justice system where you are presumed guilty. Even if you are caught red handed, holding the knife, standing over the body on video while confessing. You are still presumed innocent…</p>
<p>Post 1039 raises the issue of deliberations by the jury before they were supposed to deliberate. </p>
<p>I haven’t followed the case enough to have an opinion about the evidence or the verdict. I have, however, served on a number of trials, including two trials for second degree murder, so it’s the jury dynamics that interest me. </p>
<p>I think momof2collegekids hit the mark. The alternate juror was quoted this morning as saying ""We … kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.” </p>
<p>"We . . . kept waiting . . . " ? In my experience the alternates do not enter the jury room once the case has been turned over to them for deliberation. So how would he know, if they weren’t discussing the case, what “we” were waiting for? That certainly indicates they were discussing the case in advance of having the case turned over to them. Frankly, I think the judge should look into this. This could be serious juror misconduct.</p>
<p>So if Casey has been convicted of lying to the police about what really happened to Caylee then is it possible that the State of Florida can sue her in Civil Court for the cost of this trial and all expenses related to the search for Caylee? At which point she will most certainly have to get on the stand and testify as to her ‘version’ of what happened (a la OJ in his civil case). Granted the girl has no money right now but you know it is coming and I pray that somehow there will be a way to make her suffer damages for what she has done. Hitting her financially and public humiliation may be the only way to really make her ‘get’ what she has done.</p>
<p>hopscout, I wasn’t passing judgement on the defense’s celebration last night. I was clarifying for the posters before me who were questioning if it was in public or private and how even though it was a private function, that public photos/videos emerged due to those looking through windows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe this is the case. Even if she IS convicted of perjury it won’t affect this case and she can’t be charged the cost of the case since she was found not guilty.</p>
<p>As to a civil case (Wrongful Death) I don’t see it happening. In Florida “The action shall be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who shall recover for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death.”</p>
<p>That means the executor of a will, or in the absence of a will an immediate family member or in the absence of an immediate family member any other surviving family member. Casey IS the immediate family member. Only the father could bring the suit if they knew who the father was. Since they don’t know there will be no suit. The grandparents can’t bring a suit unless they had custody and neither can the state…</p>
<p>In OJ’s case the suit was brought by Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman’s (a victim) father…</p>
<p>
She has been found not guilty, or innocent in the legal sense. This does not mean she did not kill her kid.</p>
<p>Agree with sylvan. An innocent person can be found guilty. A guilty person can be found innocent…all in the court of law…given the burdens of proof. What a jury decides doesn’t then follow that a person is innocent or guilty factually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would follow then that unless you know for a fact (with evidence, not feelings) that someone did it , they are for all intents and purposes innocent.</p>
<p>They may be guilty in fact, but without clear evidence to prove it you can’t assert their guilt.</p>
<p>You would have as much weight asserting Casey is not innocent as you would have asserting that the aliens on planet Xebo are friendly. You have the same amount of evidence for both claims.</p>
<p>None…</p>