To say the verdict in the State v. Casey Anthony is shocking is an understatement.
I am dazed, overwhelmed at this jury decision. Are we in an alternate reality where wrong is right and right is wrong? It seems so to me.
Even though Casey Anthony was found not guilty yesterday, it does not mean she is innocent of the death of her daughter.
Apparently, the jury did not have an abiding and sure belief of guilt. And I have to accept and appreciate their decision.
But, it’s difficult to do this because I see this as a miscarriage of justice. Then again, a worse miscarriage would be finding an defendant guilty when they are innocent.
That would be far worse, and so I’m taking that to the bank.
What went wrong?
Some Legal Eagles and Talking Heads are saying, “Well this verdict is an example that the system worked.” I can’t quite agree with that, but I do understand that I have to accept the verdict because this is our system, and it’s the best in the world.
I think the heart of this decision boils down to the jury not wanting to have the burden of sending Casey to jail for the rest of her life. Maybe they thought if their decision was wrong, it’s better to be wrong via an acquittal then to be wrong via finding guilt.
My belief in Casey’s guilt is abiding, and I think the jury made a decision that speaks to their fear of getting it wrong, so they erred on the side of caution.
We all believed that because the jury took only eleven hours to come to their verdict, they must have found her guilty. I was so sure that was the case. I can’t help wondering that this jury did not delve into the evidence because they wanted or needed to get home.
My head tells me, this jury, who are supposedly people without vendettas, without prejudice, without agendas, have made the best decision because we have trusted them to do so, and twelve of them have sacrificed two months of their individual lives to fulfill their promise.
And so, I should accept the jury’s verdict, just as Assistant State Attorney, Jeff Ashton so gracefully accepts it. I’m struggling with this. Really struggling.
Jeff Ashton was on the Today Show this morning. He has accepted with grace and understanding this verdict. Watch Jeff Ashton on the Today Show: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43651905#43651905
So, what went wrong? I never, never expected things to go this wrong. How did it happen to go so wrong? Were Casey Anthony’s parents partly to blame because of all the lies they told? Did the family muddy the water just enough that the jury did not know who to believe? Did the jurors think that the garbage in Casey’s car explained the smell of decomposition? Did they believe Jose Baez’s claim that Caylee’s death was a tragic accident? Did the jury sympathize with Casey and did not want her to pay with the rest of her life? If that is the case, what about Caylee? Were they only thinking about Casey and nothing about Caylee?
The charge must fit the crime.
Did the State of Florida overcharge Casey Anthony?
The charges, though fitting of the crime in my view, must fit the jury’s ability to grasp all of the elements of the crime. Was the case so convoluted and muddied to such an extent by the defense, they took reasonable doubt to an even higher standard? No cause of death. No eye witness. No CSI moments. Just a lot of circumstantial evidence.
The death penalty and circumstantial evidence may be a hard sell for a sentence of death, or life in jail.
Did publicity hurt this case?
Scott Peterson was convicted of Capital Murder with much less evidence. That trial was not televised. Did the TV play too big of a part in this case? Did the transparent and liberal public records law in Florida damage the case?
I read so much of the discovery in this case, there was no doubt in my mind of who was responsible for this crime.
If the State of Florida had to do it again, would the charges start with 2nd degree murder? I believe, though in hindsight, this would have been just since the cause of death, tragically, was ruled unknown.
Had Caylee been found the first time Roy Kronk relieve himself in those woods, it would have been a very different case, obviously.
There are many more questions than there are answers.
Theory of the Defense
I believe that Jose Baez and team floated theories that were deceiving and not at all a search for the truth. I felt this defense team was unethical. Do they teach trickery in law schools?
Why couldn’t the jurors see the tricks and the deception of the defense team?
I truly thought that a reasonable person should see through the smoke and mirrors and see what the defendant did to her very own child.
Why didn’t this jury at least ask themselves, “What is reasonable about not reporting a child’s absence for 31 days?” Answer? It is NOT reasonable! It would never be reasonable!
Didn’t the State of Florida make it clear that this mother NEVER, for 31 days, cared one bit for her child and lied about her whereabouts?
Did the jury buy the drowning accident? I think they must have. Didn’t they want evidence of drowning?
Was this jury just so anxious to get home? Is that why they did not review the evidence?
When reasonable doubt is the standard, shouldn’t the penalty be reasonable, too?
Reasonable doubt is a high standard, as it should be. If this standard did not exist, the possibility of a Police State could easily become our governing system of justice.
To me, reason and justice are entwined. Maybe the problem is that reason means different things to different people. Is it as simple as knowing right from wrong? Not exactly.
I think reasonable doubt is sometimes an unreasonable concept for people to understand. This is the “reasonable doubt” the jurors were told to apply, as written in their jury instructions:
Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
Because the definition both of “reasonable” and “doubt” are subjective, it stands to reason why the court attempts to define it in such as way as “reasonable” people can apply their own ethical thermometer to the amount (or level) of reasonable doubt they apply to the question of guilt or non-guilt.
adj.1 having sound judgment. 2 not absurd. 3a not excessive; inexpensive. b tolerable; fair.
n.1 uncertainty; undecided state of mind. 2 inclination to disbelieve. 3 uncertain state of things. 4 lack of full proof. v.1 tr. feel uncertain or undecided about. 2tr. hesitate to believe or trust. 3intr. feel uncertain or undecided. 4 tr. call in question.
My reason tells me:
- A child in the woods whose face is covered in duct tape is wrong.
- An accident made to look like a murder is wrong.
- A mother not reporting her child missing is wrong.
- A car with the smell of human decomposition means something is wrong, just as Cindy Anthony said, “There’s something wrong…”
- A mother thinking her life is beautiful now her child is gone, is that mother’s right, but it is wrong by every ethical standard.
- A Father molesting a daughter is wrong. Did it happen? There is no proof either way except a liar says it is so.
I also think that how a person’s individual definition of right and wrong plays into their understanding of reasonable doubt. What I think is wrong and what you think is wrong, may be different.
Maybe this is problematic with juries. Maybe we need a better way to define what reasonable doubt means. It would be good to give examples to jurors.
Or, maybe we could give potential jurors a test – if they fail this test, they cannot be jurors!
That may be prejudicial though.
How about we change laws about lawyer credentials – insist they take a test to prove that integrity and ethics are values they hold dear.