What a great post! I could not agree more.
What I find so interesting about this whole mess of a trial is that all research I had done about Judge Perry showed him as a fair and impartial judge, very knowledgeable of the law, no nonsense allowed in his courtroom, etc. Judge Perry even stated once during Casey's trial that trials are about finding "the truth."
While most were ready to canonize this impressive judge, I was bothered by some of the antics going on in the courtroom that went completely ignored by him.
With any trial, the judge should run a tight ship. With a high-profile trial like this, it is even more important to do so. Yet, we saw Casey testify on her own behalf without ever getting up on the stand! She did this on pretty much a daily basis. Plus, both sides are guilty of facial expressions while the other was speaking. Judge Perry had issued an order at the onset that he would not tolerate such displays, yet he did in fact tolerate it over and over. While the judge did several times call counsel on this, he never once called the defense out regarding their client's facial expressions, nodding, head shaking, and mouthing words. I will never believe that the judge did not see this happening.
And it was not even just during the trial that I was concerned about things being lax. I recall one potential juror being sent out in the middle of voir dire and when she returned she reported that a man had approached her and had spoken to her. They went to a secret venue to select the jury so why was the area not secure? A man had freedom to approach a potential juror who had been sent out of the room so that she would not be *tainted* by anything being said? Yes, she was dismissed, but the fact that this happened at all is a huge red flag, IMO.
Judge Perry catered to these jurors for the entire trial. I have no problem with him trying to keep them happy and comfortable as sequestration forces certain discomforts on jurors. However, when the jurors saw the judge bending over backward for their benefit, and then saw what appeared to be the judge doing the same for the benefit of the defense, it is reasonable to be concerned, IMO.
Could the jury have been given the impression that the judge favored the defense, and could that have affected their ultimate decision in this case? Could this jury have simply delivered a verdict that they thought the judge wanted to hear?
It certainly appeared to me in many instances during this trial that the judge catered to the defense, and especially the defendant. Could the jurors have read something into that?
We have a judge who apparently throughout his career did everything by the book and followed the letter of the law in all respects, until the Casey Anthony case. Since his other trials were not televised there is, of course, no way to know for certain that he was not lax in other cases as well, but his exemplary reputation as a judge suggests that this is not the case.
And now post-trial, the judge wants this case treated differently than all others to ensure the jurors' safety. Ok, I agree juror safety should be a consideration, but it should be for all jurors in all cases, not just this one.
If this case is so special that it cries out for special treatment of the jurors post-trial, then the judge should go all the way with that and place a post-trial gag order on the jurors.
