<p>soozivt-
I quote you simply to use as a point of discussion, but some on here have pointed to what they see as the non proovability of the defenses case as part of the reason the jury was stupid in voting for acquital, I wasn’t implying you believed the defense had to prove their case, it was for others who seem to have this idea that the defense has to prove anything in a legal context.</p>
<p>There are several things flying around here that are making for some hot conversation. Part of the problem is that we use the term “acquit” and “innocent” to mean the same thing, and they don’t. In a legal context, acquit doesn’t mean innocent, it means simply that the jury felt the person on trial wasn’t proven strongly enought to have done it. People watch a lot of tv, and assume that in a trial that there is this incredible 11th hour thing where suddenly the cop who lied breaks down on the stand, or someone else admits they did it (and in that case, you would be able to argue innocence was the same thing). The legal system assumes someone is innocent, and from a legal standpoint, if that isn’t proven strongly enough, they are still assumed innocent, but that doesn’t really clear them. In some of these posts, i think there is confusion because people hear someone say Casey was innocent and assume they mean they thought she didn’t have something to do with the daughter’s death, rather then saying the Jury didn’t find enough evidence to prove the case. </p>
<p>People bring up other cases, like the Laci Peterson case, and ask how that jury could convict without the physical evidence and this one could, implying somehow that there are hard and fast rules for this, or the Laci Peterson case had smart jurors and this one dumb ones, and that bothers me. Yes, I have to wonder about Jury verdicts at times, I couldn’t believe the OJ verdict was what it was, but I also have learned both from serving on juries and from reading in cases or being told things by lawyers that the ‘facts’ that we know may not have been in the courtroom, that we don’t know how well the prosecution fended off cross ex or defense poked holes in their cases (classic one? The infamous glove in the OJ trial…a friend who is a lawyer said there is an old axiom, never ask a question or introduce a piece of evidence before know the response or where it fits). </p>
<p>People argue facts and objective truth like it is some sort of clear set of mathematical formulae, and it isn’t, juries are picked at random to a certain extent, a smart prosecutor can get people more like to side with their case, ro a smart defense lawyer can rip holes in a prosecution witness. More importantly, juries are not machines, they operate in a world they are told to. In the Scott Peterson case, the judge could have allowed things the judge in this case did not, for example. Maybe in the peterson case, the prosecutor emphasized the fact that you don’t need physical evidence to convince and the guy in this case didn’t do enough. There is no magical value of what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ means, the only thing jurors are told is whatever they feel about the defendant, whether sympathetic or not, that it is in the evidence that they have to look, it is in the weight of the evidence and if they feel the prosecution didn’t have enough to remove most doubt, they have to acquit. That burden is supposed to be a big one, our judicial philosophy is that it is better for 10 guilty people to be acquitted then one guilty person sent to jail. </p>
<p>The prime reason this was done? Because the state has a long track record (state meaning government, not Florida) of using its power in trials to put innocent people in jail and to death, because it suits their purposes. With a vile crime like this one, or cases like the Haymarket Square case or Sacco and Vanzetti, there was a state of panic and public outrage and they had to demonstrate that the state would deal with the matter and get “justice”; more importantly, those specific cases also highlight that the state often has ulterior motives, both were onstensibly murder trials, but with Haymarket it in part was the state demonstrating to business leaders their committment to helping quell labor unrest, and in the Sacco and Vanzetti case in finding ways to suppress unpopular political thought, in this case anarchists. </p>
<p>And I agree with the law professor, who blamed the ‘law and order’ prosecutor for bringing this as a capital murder case. As murder 2, the jury, because the death penalty wasn’t involved, might be willing to convict her, knowing that if they goofed there would be a chance down the road of the person being freed. Even with all the death row appeals and so forth, ultimately the death penalty seals in the ultimate fate. Scott Peterson didn’t face the death penalty I believe, and while there is no way to know if they would have voted to convict if that was on the table, not having to face that could have swayed their voting. The concept basically is that with the death penalty, that burden of proof becomes that much higher because the stakes are higher. He stated (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that with circumstantial cases, that the conviction rate is lower in all cases then where there is physical evidence, but more importantly, that with death penalty cases, it is extremely hard to convict on circumstantial evidence.</p>
<p>The other thing in comparing trials is the times they are held in. Not that many years ago, it probably was a lot easier to get convictions based on circumstantial cases, based in part about the unlikability of the defendant, but in recent times, thanks in part to better DNA methods, people have seen plenty of cases, especially death penalty ones, tried and adjudicated and the person found guilty, that DNA showed without a doubt the person was innocent; plus people also have grown skeptical of prosecutors, seeing things like the Duke rape case or other incidents of malfeasance, and they are a lot more skeptical then they would have been 30 or 40 years ago. </p>
<p>Then the other thing you have to keep in mind is judges run the trial, and that can change outcomes big time. Maybe in the Peterson case the judge was more supportive of the prosecution and allowed evidence they didn’t in this case, maybe he allowed statements as fact in that case not allowed here, we don’t know.</p>
<p>What disturbs me is people calling the jurors stupid or how 'it is obvious she was guilty, the must have been on drugs", that is what bothers me, if someone wants to say Casey is probably guilty I would probably tend to agree, that is fair. If there had been physical evidence saying the girl had been murdered, drugs in the system, I would agree I couldn’t understand, but there wasn’t and the jury felt they had doubt. The jury in the Peterson case worked on it, and felt that the evidence was strong enough to get rid of significant doubt, and voted that way. 12 people had to vote to acquit (one person can hang a jury, not acquit), and if it was so clear, how come 12 people on that jury all voted the same way, without a lot of scuffling (it took only 10 hours), wasn’t like some were arguing for conviction, sounds to me like almost everyone there had doubts, which should tell you something,that maybe they weren’t so stupid, but rather the prosecution didn’t do a good job.</p>
<p>As far as Casey goes, if she did this I would hope that there is some conscience there, that somehow justice would at least make her feel the pain of what happened. If not, I also will add that even with an acquittal her life is ruined, even if she changes her name and moves elsewhere, it will haunt her, there is very little place to hide these days, and she won’t be happy and carefree. </p>
<p>BTW, I think a lot of people on here have made very valid arguments for their beliefs, I think the real problem here is almost all of us are disgusted and sickened by what happened to that poor girl and I think in light of that, it is very hard to keep a discussion low key and it comes out. I don’t think anyone writing is stupid, whether they agree or disagree with me, my take is simply people feel strongly, for some it is in the protection of the law in terms of being assumed innocent, for others it is what they see (not unrightfully) as a case where a poor child was left dead and rotting in a bag and the person who even I will say probably had a hand in it and got off with doing that. Put it this way, I strongly support the jury system, as flawed as it is, but if I read in the paper down the road that Casey came to a foul end, I wouldn’t shed too many tears for her and could possibly think of it as karmic justice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you mean that it is better for 10 guilty people to be acquitted than for one INNOCENT person to be sent to jail. :D</p>
<p>Many feel, including myself, that it would have been better to not have tried the case as a capital murder case (death penalty).</p>
<p>Maybe Florida’s flawed scales of justice balance out with extreme injustices? And maybe defendents like Casey Anthony sometimes get luckier than 16 year old Adam Bollenback who got 10 years in Florida’s hard prisons for stealing a 6 pack of beer. He is scheduled to be released in a few months after 10 years–he entered prison at 17.</p>
<p>[A</a> case of beer, a decade behind bars](<a href=“http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/investigates/222-a-case-of-beer-a-decade-behind-bars]A”>http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/investigates/222-a-case-of-beer-a-decade-behind-bars)</p>
<p>[Inmate</a> Population Information Detail](<a href=“http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=100114634]Inmate”>http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=100114634)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement represents a basic misunderstanding of the charges and jury instructions. Do you think that murder 2 and manslaughter were not on the table? Did you not understand that there were ways for her to be convicted that did not involve the death penalty? </p>
<p>It may be helpful to hear and read the jury instructions. They are instructive as to reasonable doubt, the use of common sense, the charges, etc. </p>
<p>[Jury</a> Instructions in the Casey Anthony Trial – In Session: - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/]Jury”>http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/)</p>
<p>This pretty much sums it up for me and instructs the jury how to deal with doubt. I think this is probably where they got it wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have an abiding conviction of guilt, based on the evidence. </p>
<p>BTW - Scott Peterson is on death row.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cartera, those charges were also on the table and at first, I thought she would be convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter but not capital murder (death penalty). However, based on what I have read, I can understand in some ways that once the jury had reasonable doubt about murder 1 and wouldn’t convict her of that, it was hard to then back peddle and remove the reasonable doubt about the lesser charges. I think I read a juror said that at one point they were split 6 and 6 for the manslaughter charge and so some were willing to convict her of this lesser charge but not of murder 1 but it was not unanimous, which may be due, in part, to having first decided not guilty on murder 1 due to reasonable doubt. So, it MAY have gone differently, some speculate (including some renown attorneys) if the original charge had been manslaughter and not capital murder. I realize both were on the table but that is different than only manslaughter being on the table. With murder 1 in the mix, it may have skewed the outcome of the lesser charges.</p>
<p>It just seems that some people thought, as it appears from musicprnt’s post, that there were no charges of murder 2, manslaughter, child abuse, etc.</p>
<p>The burden of proof is not higher in a death penalty case (referring again to post 1603).There are different elements to prove, but the burden is the same. If the jury did not believe Casey caused Caylee’s death, then they couldn’t find murder 1,2,3, manslaughter, etc. </p>
<p>This jury may have been overwhelmed by the specter of the death penalty but they were not supposed to factor in the penalty during the guilt phase. Because that is very difficult to do, I agree the prosecutor made a harder job for himself by going for the death penalty.</p>
<p>Music parent. You think that scott peterson didn’t face the death penalty???</p>
<p>His butt is on death row and no one knows how Laci died.</p>
<p>cartera that may be another area too… the first juror that was interviewed said something about… if we dont know how she died how do we know what punishment to give… they arent supposed to deal with that during that phase of the trial…but sounds like they did</p>
<p>Cartera your post 1609 is right. </p>
<p>And juries are not supposed to consider sentences during trial delib. </p>
<p>It makes no sense to say that if the dp were not on the table that the jury would’ve convicted. The burden of proof is not higher.</p>
<p>This jury behaved in an impulsive manner. </p>
<p>According to them they were sickened by their verdict. … is so, then why not take the time to review to make sure that thet couldn’t convict? They didn’t have a time limit issued by the court. They didn’t review evidence.</p>
<p>If I was bothered, I would’ve said, hey, we need to review. There’s no way they properly delberated in a few hours.</p>
<p>I have to agree that the deliberations were shockingly short, particularly in light of the disclosure that the first vote for manslaughter was 6-6. Perhaps keeping the jury working over the long weekend was a bad idea. With all of us so used to having the world at our fingertips constantly, a sequestered jury, cut off from all news sources (I have to assume they had no internet access, or sequestering would have been pointless) plus not getting the 3-day holiday that the rest of the country was enjoying, must have been a very restless and discontented bunch, perhaps far too eager to be done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The quote is from the jury instructions. Some seem to think that if evidence is presented to counter a theory, the theory should be thrown out - that expert against expert cancels out the evidence for example. It takes time and analysis to evaluate evidence. The easiest thing to do is throw it all out.</p>
<p>When you think about it, considering how long this trial was, the deliberations were very short. It doesn’t seem like there was tons of discussion on each piece of evidence, etc. Why, I think this CC discussion thread debating every little point is longer than the jury’s deliberations! 
:D</p>
<p>if you think you are spelling something correctly, you dont pull out the dictionary to check… if they think they had it “right” they didnt need to go over the pieces of evidence?.</p>
<p>But for instance, since at one point they were in a vote of 6 to 6 regarding manslaughter, I would think it would take some time to debate different facets methodically before voting once again. But what do I know.</p>
<p>i would think so too but…</p>
<p>Maybe it is only CCers who like to debate every detail! :)</p>
<p>*if you think you are spelling something correctly, you dont pull out the dictionary to check… if they think they had it “right” they didnt need to go over the pieces of evidence?. *</p>
<p>If you think you have it right, you don’t have a sickness in your stomach essentially telling you that you have it wrong or may have it wrong.</p>
<p>I agree that they just wanted out…they didn’t want to deliberate. Justice didn’t occur. They didn’t do their job as instructed. They just did whatever they had to in order to go home. Pathetic.</p>