Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[JBean]

Let me clarify.

Maybe a sports analogy will suffice. The prosecution should place their most experienced and talented team on a capital case of this magnitude and exposure. That team should be prepared to shift strategy and deftly rebut any unexpected testimony and court ruling. It is the very core of their job responsibilities.

Let's take football. Opposing teams watch film of the other side in order to analyze their plays and strategy so that they can defend against them. That is what I mean by playing "devil's advocate". The best way to learn how to be a great defense attorney is learning how the prosecution operates. It is knowing the opponent and in a court room, gauging the possible effect that your opponent is having on the jury.

The DT spent a great deal of time in closing explaining "reasonable doubt". It might have come off as a grade school attempt to spoon feed the jury, but the jury needed it!! They aren't professional jurors. The State could have argued as to the absurdity of the DT theory with actual evidence and spent time explaining circumstantial evidence. Instead, they almost insulted the jury by telling them that they feared they would leave common sense at the door. They didn't demonstrate what would be common sense and what wouldn't...and clearly this jury needed that. They underestimated the DT and their case and made mistaken assumptions about the jury because they forgot to look at the case from the juror's perspective. And I absolutely believe that it is the prosecutor's job to outperform the defense in a criminal case. That is not accomplished by sticking to a pre-determined script.

I concur.

I have referenced a high profile case in my area that ended in a mistrial. I reference it a lot for different things because I learned so much from it.
The gang rape was videotaped by the perpetrators themselves and was used at trial. Many of us assumed a conviction was no brainer because the whole dang thing was taped.

Shock and awe after the mistrial. The jurors managed to see something different than the public on the tape.

After the mistrial, the prosecutors interviewed the jury to find out what went wrong. They got a jury consultant to help them pick a more appropriate jury. Armed with information and after reducing the charges, they won a conviction easily. They won because they tuned into the jury and addressed all their concerns to make sure they were not hung the 2nd time around.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I concur.

I have referenced a high profile case in my area that ended in a mistrial. I reference it a lot for different things because I learned so much from it.
The gang rape was videotaped by the perpetrators themselves and was used at trial. Many of us assumed a conviction was no brainer because the whole dang thing was taped.

Shock and awe after the mistrial. The jurors managed to see something different than the public on the tape.

After the mistrial, the prosecutors interviewed the jury to find out what went wrong. They got a jury consultant to help them pick a more appropriate jury. Armed with information and after reducing the charges, they won a conviction easily. They won because they tuned into the jury and addressed all their concerns to make sure they were not hung the 2nd time around.

Exactly!! That is what happened in the Craig Peyer trial in San Diego. He was the CHP officer who killed a young woman when he pulled her over. If one is lucky, they get a second chance to prosecute the case. Although I DID NOT want a hung jury on this case, now I wish that had happened.

I didn't want to see Cindy and George put through this again. Although I have my feelings about both of them and their attempts to confuse the jurors, I am certain that neither of them had ANYTHING to do with the physical causes of Caylee's death, although they both feel extremely guilty in retrospect with the "What if's" going through their minds that may have lead their daughter to want to kill Caylee...or the ways that they feel they could have prevented it.

I am just glad you understand that it is the prosecution's case to win or lose. I am just sickened by the fact that it took such nominal wit to persuade this jury.

 

[LinasK]

Exactly!! That is what happened in the Craig Peyer trial in San Diego. He was the CHP officer who killed a young woman when he pulled her over. If one is lucky, they get a second chance to prosecute the case..

Thanks for the info. I remember him well because I was living in San Diego when he killed Kara/Cara (sp?) and I was driving I-15 alone near the timeframe when he killed her!!! I moved from San Diego in '89 and wasn't aware it took two trials to convict him!

 

[KarmicLaw]

Thanks for the info. I remember him well because I was living in San Diego when he killed Kara/Cara (sp?) and I was driving I-15 alone near the timeframe when he killed her!!! I moved from San Diego in '89 and wasn't aware it took two trials to convict him!

Yep! Cara Knott.

The State used different prosecutors the second time around, and there were pre-trial motions that excluded evidence that was presented in the first trial.

Interestingly, his conviction occurred prior to the accepted use of DNA evidence and although Peyer always proclaimed his innocence, he refused to voluntarily submit his DNA for subsequent analysis. Guilty? Ummmm, yea.

 

[Solange82200]

bbm - The State can't play that game -

I agree 110 percent. The state should not be pandering it's questions and strategy based on a juror or what they think might work. Unlike the defense, they are usually on a quest for the truth.

 

[LinasK]

Yep! Cara Knott.

The State used different prosecutors the second time around, and there were pre-trial motions that excluded evidence that was presented in the first trial.

Interestingly, his conviction occurred prior to the accepted use of DNA evidence and although Peyer always proclaimed his innocence, he refused to voluntarily submit his DNA for subsequent analysis. Guilty? Ummmm, yea.

Also, she scratched his face, which he claimed he fell against a chain link fence gassing up his cruiser. On an episode of Forensic Files, I believe they found evidence of gold fibers from his CHP patch on her clothing- that's indiputable circumstantial evidence!!!

 

[JBean]

I agree 110 percent. The state should not be pandering it's questions and strategy based on a juror or what they think might work. Unlike the defense, they are usually on a quest for the truth.

The W is as important to the prosecution as it is to the defense, that is for sure.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I agree 110 percent. The state should not be pandering it's questions and strategy based on a juror or what they think might work. Unlike the defense, they are usually on a quest for the truth.

Of course they are on a quest for the truth, but it is naive to think that they should not be mindful of what is influencing the trier of fact....in this case, the jury.

The goal is to get a conviction of the guilty party, and if that means being flexible in how one approaches their case based on the opposition, it isn't pandering...it's called strategic brilliance.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

I'm sure XICA is just giddy at the fact she's fixing to get out and live the good life! Wouldn't it be sweet if the FBI walked up at the minute she was released & arrested her on Federal charges....i know, I can dream!:banghead:

 

[theBritster]

I'm sure XICA is just giddy at the fact she's fixing to get out and live the good life! Wouldn't it be sweet if the FBI walked up at the minute she was released & arrested her on Federal charges....i know, I can dream!:banghead:

bbm. I was just thinking the same thing on my way home not too long ago. I bet she's so excited right now! And I'm sitting here with a knot in my stomach.

And for the record, I'd give my right arm for the FBI to do what you said! lol. We can both dream!

 

[Solange82200]

By the way, I see now after reading that isnt what you mean Karmic. I think I just disagree with you on the fact I dont think the defense did anything special, nor could the state have done much more. I think the state did a great job. I think the problem is with the jury, for whatever reason. I see your reasoning though, and you may be right, Im just not sure, I still think the jury was a perfect storm along with the fact we have an attractive young white attractive middle class woman.

 

[Solange82200]

Of course they are on a quest for the truth, but it is naive to think that they should not be mindful of what is influencing the trier of fact....in this case, the jury.

The goal is to get a conviction of the guilty party, and if that means being flexible in how one approaches their case based on the opposition, it isn't pandering...it's called strategic brilliance.

You are certainly right, but in context of this case for example, what could they have done? Could they have hammered home the fact that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict? Maybe. Other than that, what could they do? There isnt a bad guy they could attack on cross since Casey didnt testify. They could have used a board and markers like the defense, but lets not forget everyone online was laughing when Jose did that, with his ridiculous drawings. His whole defense, from opening to closing (although some of his closing was good, but it got too outlandish at parts) was ridiculous. I certainly could have never foreseen that anyone could buy that, much less 12 people. I don't know, maybe you'll convince me, I'm on the fence...

 

[okiedokietoo]

Excuse me? This is not a game.

Please explain what part of my post you are referring to so that I can clarify.

I hope I clarified it for you.

If you are unclear as to what I mean when I speak of confirmation bias, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

Don't need it clarified. In my post, I put in bold a part of your post. Consequently, my comment was in reference to the part in bold. The defense was overwhelmingly emphasizing any information that supported their story/conclusion. re: the Jury- Confirmation bias was a factor, but I think more so in the sense that they were seriously concerned with what would happen if they were wrong. When Jose Baez said "She could be 13 years old, have her father's p**** in her mouth and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened", he went so far over the line of what is accepted in society and this is when an illusory correlation of people and facts/fiction took over the Jury. George angry bad, Casey crying sad, p**** in her mouth - George big angry looking down deceitful , Casey sitting in lowered chair sad little girl going to school after p**** in her mouth. When I said the State doesn't play these games, I meant that they don't hire consultants to monitor social media sites to adjust their case. The State doesn't change their theory of the crime numerous times until they think they have one that can use to create illusory correlations for the Jury. The State of Florida put on a case based on evidence.
(my sidebar)
I hope I never see a prosecutor doing a "Jose Houdini" during trial. Both the State and the Defense wanted to win. Yes it was a high stakes trial with Casey's Life on the table, but none the less, it was a game, and Casey won.

 

[MissJames]

Don't need it clarified. In my post, I put in bold a part of your post. Consequently, my comment was in reference to the part in bold. The defense was overwhelmingly emphasizing any information that supported their story/conclusion. re: the Jury- Confirmation bias was a factor, but I think more so in the sense that they were seriously concerned with what would happen if they were wrong. When Jose Baez said "She could be 13 years old, have her father's p**** in her mouth and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened", he went so far over the line of what is accepted in society and this is when an illusory correlation of people and facts/fiction took over the Jury. George angry bad, Casey crying sad, p**** in her mouth - George big angry looking down deceitful , Casey sitting in lowered chair sad little girl going to school after p**** in her mouth. When I said the State doesn't play these games, I meant that they don't hire consultants to monitor social media sites to adjust their case. The State doesn't change their theory of the crime numerous times until they think they have one that can use to create illusory correlations for the Jury. The State of Florida put on a case based on evidence.
(my sidebar)
I hope I never see a prosecutor doing a "Jose Houdini" during trial. Both the State and the Defense wanted to win. Yes it was a high stakes trial with Casey's Life on the table, but none the less, it was a game, and Casey won.

:bullseye: :goodpost: Don't forget her 8th grade picture on the imaginary friends poster :clap::clap::clap: If she really was innocent why did they need to pull so many tricks? :waitasec:

 

[JBean]

Don't need it clarified. In my post, I put in bold a part of your post. Consequently, my comment was in reference to the part in bold. The defense was overwhelmingly emphasizing any information that supported their story/conclusion. re: the Jury- Confirmation bias was a factor, but I think more so in the sense that they were seriously concerned with what would happen if they were wrong. When Jose Baez said "She could be 13 years old, have her father's p**** in her mouth and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened", he went so far over the line of what is accepted in society and this is when an illusory correlation of people and facts/fiction took over the Jury. George angry bad, Casey crying sad, p**** in her mouth - George big angry looking down deceitful , Casey sitting in lowered chair sad little girl going to school after p**** in her mouth. When I said the State doesn't play these games, I meant that they don't hire consultants to monitor social media sites to adjust their case. The State doesn't change their theory of the crime numerous times until they think they have one that can use to create illusory correlations for the Jury. The State of Florida put on a case based on evidence.
(my sidebar)
I hope I never see a prosecutor doing a "Jose Houdini" during trial. Both the State and the Defense wanted to win. Yes it was a high stakes trial with Casey's Life on the table, but none the less, it was a game, and Casey won.

If for some random reason the State were allowed to try KC again, they would be foolish not to use a jury consultant , take the reservations of the original jurors to heart,monitor all media sites, and adjust their approach.
Wouldn't it be wise to address the problems they encountered with the jurors and change what they didn't like? I would wager the prosecutors would even change their own demeanor to be more likable and approachable to the new jurors.
It is not about changing the story, it is about changing the strategy so that the truth comes out in such a way that it increases the likelihood of a conviction. This is as much a game about winning to the prosecutor as it is to the defense and the prosecutors would play if they had another shot at it. imo

 

[USARDOG]

Oh yes they got it wrong. IMO they might have leaned too heavily on scientific evidence. In stead IMO they could have explained how simple it is to make Chloroform, and why none was found. I think the jury did not listen to the complicated evidence, and gave as much credence to the half-baked science the defense offered as they did to the state of the art evidence of the pros.

In the OJ trial, it was, "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit," that won it IMO. Something simple to consider was what they needed to offer the jury. Also could have given GA more time to rebuff the several accusations against him.

 

[momtective]

Need a laugh? This is funny http://twitpic.com/5lrbo9

 

[3doglady]

Need a laugh? This is funny http://twitpic.com/5lrbo9

:floorlaugh:

 

[okiedokietoo]

If for some random reason the State were allowed to try KC again, they would be foolish not to use a jury consultant , take the reservations of the original jurors to heart,monitor all media sites, and adjust their approach.
Wouldn't it be wise to address the problems they encountered with the jurors and change what they didn't like? I would wager the prosecutors would even change their own demeanor to be more likable and approachable to the new jurors.
It is not about changing the story, it is about changing the strategy so that the truth comes out in such a way that it increases the likelihood of a conviction. This is as much a game about winning to the prosecutor as it is to the defense and the prosecutors would play if they had another shot at it. imo

Yes I said and I agree with you that it is a game for both sides.
My original post was in response to a post re: Confirmation Bias & Illusory Correlation.
The prosecutors had a very serious case to present to the jury, the murder of a 2 year old child. Their demeanor reflected the seriousness of their duties as prosecutors and the evidence of the case. The defense did not win the jury over by being likable and approachable. The defense won the jury in the opening statement when JB said "She could be 13 years old, have her father's p**** in her mouth and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened" - Illusory Correlation. It was also a statement that the defense never backed up with facts. Casey never got on the stand and verified that statement. But she didn't have to because that statement was a whispering echo that never left the courtroom. It was a subliminal visual that the jurors saw every time they looked at Casey, appearing so small sitting next to her attorneys in her lowered chair....like a 13 year old child.
The defense didn't just use the media consultant to adjust their approach. They used the information to focus in on different people, singling them out as being the "real" murderer of Caylee.
Maybe the prosecutors needed to hire a sociologist to help them diffuse JB's statement.
Hire a media consultant, okay that might work but for the prosecutors and the presentation of the evidence of their case wouldn't that really just help during jury selection?

 

[KarmicLaw]

Okiedokietoo,

First you indicated that the "Prosecution doesn't play that game" and then you admit that it is a game. I am not in any way being dismissive of the gravity and serious nature of the events in the court room. However, my initial point was that it is the prosecutions duty to leave no stone unturned in obtaining a Guilty verdict.

Let me address what appears to be a recurring point of contention for you. Like you, everyone was appalled that JB made a specific reference to Casey having to go to school after having her Dad's <snipped> in her mouth. Triple AAA appalling. So you think it was beneath the prosecution to even "go there"? I think it was an error to ignore it.

I was merely implying that an astute legal team can "sense" when they are on a roll and when they are at risk of losing the jury. If I was on the prosecution team I would have attacked that remark as being beyond disgusting, yet not surprising or shocking because that is Casey Anthony's M.O. It wasn't enough to know that her parents would be devastated by the loss of their granddaughter, but Casey Anthony has no shame in spewing obscenities in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the facts and the evidence of her culpability. I would look the jurors in the eyes with sincere sarcasm and shock. Then I would look at the ground in disgust because I would have to go on to the remainder of my closing argument. Yet, it would be evident that it took every fiber of my being to contain my outrage and disgust at the extent of what Casey Anthony would do to others to further her own agenda.

I would then pound on the circumstantial evidence, the fact that it wasn't "junk science". For example, there was a time that DNA was not used. Is that junk science now? No, DNA is not junk science and neither were the air samples. They were cutting edge science and we were lucky it existed to provide additional proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

AAAAArrrrghghhhh, I can't even think straight right now. Maybe I should write out my own closing arguments and then I won't sound so all over the place.

ETA: And while I am in the mood to vent...let me address the ridiculousness of referring to Casey Anthony's deliberate lies with the intent to deceive, as "imaginary friends". Are you kidding me? The prosecution threw that out there first! Imaginary. Think about that. It immediately provokes an image of an enduring child like game. Such an innocent image. NOT THE IMAGE the prosecution should be conjuring up in the jury's mind in regards to Casey Anthony.

Okay, I'm going to go breathe now....