Am I the only person in the world who knew Casey Anthony would be found not guilty? If so, is there some kind of prize involved?
The night before the verdict came in, MB and I were talking about the case, making our predictions.
MB said, “The jury is 7 women and 5 men. Those women are gonna find her guilty.”
“Nope,” I said.
“‘Nope’? Why not?”
“The forensic evidence just isn’t there. I think she did it, but the evidence doesn’t prove it. She walks. Not guilty.”
“That sucks. I think you’re wrong.”
“I think I’m right.”
“Guess we’ll see.”
“Yup.”
One thing I’m very familiar with through my time years ago studying court reporting is jury charges. Those are the long, wordy, boring instructions the judge gives the jurors before they begin deliberations. They’re literally just read from a book, most of the time, with case-specific names occasionally inserted. In real time an entire jury charge can take a judge anywhere from, oh, 20 to 40 minutes to read. They’re charge specific, too, meaning an embezzlement case will have one type of “charge”; a murder another. I have huge chunks of these things stored away in my brain mainly because I heard them so many times. It’s like how you have Barry Manilow’s “Copacabana” banging around in your head: overexposure to the mental contaminant. Jury charges are repetitive in nature to make sure people get it, get it, get it. In a way, they’re a bit of an insult to a person of above-average intelligence, but no juror can really argue that the instructions weren’t made abundantly, boringly clear. It’s the ultimate in legal CYA.
And one thing the jury in the Casey Anthony trial would have heard over and over and over would have been the phrase “reasonable doubt.” In explaining reasonable doubt, and I’m quoting from memory here, a jury charge might say:
(Italics mine)
The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of crime. The defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a “clean slate,” meaning with no evidence against him or her. And the law permits only legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense; the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.
The jury must remember that a defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture.
The burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case, has a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge, it must acquit. If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions—one of innocence, the other of guilt—the jury should of course adopt the conclusion of innocence.
And, frankly, there you have it. Based on this kind of charge alone, the definition of reasonable doubt, Casey Anthony had to walk because of the utter lack of forensic evidence, and because, if the evidence takes you to two conclusions, you are charged to choose “not guilty.” But, really, that lack of hard forensic evidence alone creates a reasonable doubt. “A doubt for which you can give a reason,” some jury charges say. “Not a fanciful or capricious doubt.” A reasonable doubt.
Do I think she did it? Yeah, I do. I think she’s a despicable person and I have all kinds of emotional doubts about her. I even have a “gut feeling” she’s guilty. I mean, come on. If it was an “accident,” then everyone sure acted like psychos in the aftermath of said “accident.” Call 911 if she fell in the pool accidentally. Don’t wrap her body in a blanket and bags and bury her in the woods. Yes, all the circumstantial evidence is damning — the smelly car, the Internet searches about chloroform, her bizarre behavior while Caley was missing, her pathological lying. My mind and my heart utterly reject any notion that she is innocent. But that’s not what the jury is asked to find. Jurors are not charged to find her innocent; they’re charged to find her guilty or NOT guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It’s legalese that essentially means the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not guilty is not necessarily innocent. Sometimes, it is. But in this case, no. I don’t think that’s what the jury is saying. They’re saying, “The lack of forensic evidence linking Casey to the crime gave us reasonable doubt. We were dutybound, legally, to find this verdict.” They jurors themselves may not even like that fact, but that’s their duty. It’s unpleasant, yes. Even horrible if you believe in your heart a murderer goes free.
But that’s reasonable doubt. That’s the standard of proof here.
And all these people going around calling it “the new O.J.”? I’m sorry. That’s just stupid. There’s a huge difference here. There was plenty of DNA evidence linking O.J. to those crimes and the jury came back not guilty in 4 hours?? No. That’s jury misconduct, in my opinion. They couldn’t have even begun to go through all the evidence before them in 4 hours. This jury spent almost triple that amount of time grappling with much lesser evidence.
Do I think it sucks that Casey Anthony walks free?
Yes, I do.
Do I think the jury had any other legal option?
No, I don’t.
I blame that bastard reasonable doubt.
Having sat on a jury, I wasn’t surprised by the verdict either. I think a better verdict would have been “not proven.” If there were such a thing in our legal system.
Kathi — Yeah. I’ve done jury duty too. It was a civil case, but even then, the responsibility of others’ lives is daunting. You feel that weight — or you should. That isn’t to say that the weight of that responsibility means you should be too scared to find someone guilty. It just means that most jurors — most — take it pretty seriously. I think the OJ jury was an aberration.
But, yeah. “Not proven.” That’s essentially what this verdict means. It just doesn’t use that language. I think there should be three possible verdicts in a criminal case: “guilty,” “not guilty” — basically meaning “not proven” — and “innocent” — meaning “we believe this person did NOT do the crime charged.”
The language makes it frustrating because it doesn’t allow for gradations or explanations. You have to infer, which I’m doing with this post, what the jury means to say.
I could see how “not proven” would mean the same as “not guilty.” I guess I’d like to see another verdict option such as “not proven” to mean that the person’s guilt is still questionable, even if it’s not fully proven.
I just hope and pray that she is not able to reap the financial benefits of our voyeuristic society with book royalties and interviews. Let her live in trailer-trashville with the guilt of what she’s done.
What I find most disheartening- other than the fact that yeah, I think she did it, or had a hand in it and circumstances made it possible for her to go free- is reading the comboxes on this story.
The realization that a huge proportion of us do not understand how the judicial system works is frankly, frightening.
Thinking of that speech in “A Man for All Seasons” about the laws all being flat, where will you hide?
The “reasonable doubt” clause is good – but in this case it just stinks that they couldn’t come up with any hard core evidence to convict. Is it a flaw in our system or protection for those who are really innocent?
In this case, it was a flaw in the prosecutors. They should have hit her with charges that could stick, and reserve trying her for murder later on, if better physical evidence came to light.
It was the correct verdict, even if it does mean that she got away with it.
I kind of wonder about the jurors, though–I mean, they had to find people who didn’t really know who she was or any of the details when the story broke. What does that say about those people? I’m not implying they’re dumb or anything like that. Just- I don’t know. My mom has been GLUED to the trial. Her opinion: If they had taken time to make a timeline, they could’ve figured it out.
I don’t know if that would have been enough.
I can’t get past the one juror who said they didn’t prove how Caylee died. I mean, did they think the duct tape over her mouth and nose was for decoration? I can kinda see it if she said they didn’t prove CASEY put it there, because they didn’t, but that’s not what she said. She said there was no proof that Caylee was murdered.
I’m like Kate, I just. . .don’t know.
Lynne,
It was a number of things that came together:
1) Police did not investigate a report of a body dump in August 2008. If the remains had been found then, there would have been much more physical evidence.
2) B/c of that, and time passing, and weather conditions (flooding of the area), the remains were so decomposed/scattered that little forensic evidence could be recovered, and no cause of death could be determined.
3) And there was no evidence as to who dumped the body or when- tire tracks, footprints, fingerprints, DNA.
So, Casey lucked out with time, weather, police incompetence and an over-reaching prosecution team.
It occurs to me at moments like this that one of the great comforts of having faith is that you can be sure that people who do horrible things will face their come-uppance someday– if not through our justice system, then when they face eternity.
Still, this woman has to live with her own mind, her knowledge of whatever it was she did. It doesn’t seem like enough. But it’s something.
I really dont think it mattered what the charges were in this case. Juror #3 stated, she was trying to decide punishment to fit the crime. The other juror stated, if Caylee was in Cindy or Caseys care. What about Cindys work records for the 16th of June? I personally think this was a rush to verdict. Lets all be frank here we know there were several jurors that had vacations planned within the next four days-one to London-another a cruise, and the rest Im sure wanted to go home. After listening for weeks of testimony, I as the 13th juror had to go back to my notes. Btw:The difference between the OJ trial and the Anthony trial is:There was clear evidence of a police officer that was known to use racist slurrs and the same officers had helped investigated the crime scene-that was contaminated-photos didnt match- blood appeared on sock. Before, anyone comments let me say this-Now, was both verdicts right? Because in my opinion two people responsible for the death of the one they loved walks free.
Tracey,
Yeah. To the whole thing. The old-man defense attorney (who gets on my nerves after his bizarre rant in the immediate post-verdict press conference) said in the sketchy basement interview with Geraldo (I know, I know) that it should have been charged as a death penalty case, and I’m kind of starting to agree.
It’s clear to me that she had some sort of involvement with it, and that she (and the grandpa) know a lot more than either one of them are saying. Her life doesn’t seem to be the poorer for having lost a child. But I also get the jury’s point that no one ever proved that she was the one who actually did it. It’s a liability of our system, but also a strength, in some ways.
As for all of the “why wouldn’t somebody call 911 if she drowned in the pool?” questions – I completely agree. Completely. But my sister and I keep reminding ourselves that absolutely nothing about this family – or this whole case, really – is normal.
roo, I completely agree. I can only hope that she finds some kind of “life coach” or whatever to teach her how to be an adult. I kind of get the sense that she’s barely capable of doing a load of laundry or paying the electric bill, and I’m sad for her, in that regard.
But I have to say, I really was hoping the judge would give her a big lecture at sentencing about how lying to the police is unacceptable, particularly in a homicide investigation.
Also, I was amazed at how “innocent, loving, mom” she looked during the trial and how “trampy unfeeling murderer” she looked during the sentencing.
Can’t wait to see what happens with grandpa. He knows something…
oops…I meant the defense attorney said it should NOT have been charged as a death penalty case
Fact: Caylee was in Casey’s care when she left house.
Testimony: George
Fact: Caylee was found with duct tape over her mouth.
Photos
Reasonable beyond doubt Casey put it there UNLESS REASONABLE alternative exists.
Statement: Caylee drowned in the pool.
Testimony: None (opening statement not evidence)
evidence: George testifies under oath it isnt so.
Casey gives statements denying drowning – she gives statements that the girl was kidnapped (reasonable inference of guilt)
Casey’s jailhouse interview confirms no drowning.
Resaonable inferences are to be considered as facts.
“…must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it”
Given this juror charge:
do you think the jurors would send George to jail for covering up for Casey? They would have to, and would have to overlook the more reasonable inference that Casey did it.
do you think they would send Roy to jail for putting duct tape on the skull – or otherwise destroying a crime scene? They would have to, and would have to overlook the more reasonable inference that Casey did it.
Should George, the tower, and everyone else who testified to the smell of decomposition in Casey’s car be convicted of perjury? They would have to, and would have to overlook the more reasonable inference that Casey created the smell with her dead child.
The use of reasonable inferences must include the weighting of cumulative facts and inferences toward the veracity of subsequent facts and inferences.
I think the jurors were improperly charged and were allowed to create UNreasonable and unsubstantiated inferences and use them to justify their decision.