No Flames - Innocent until proven guilty

[lawlady84]

Outside of my personal feelings as a citizen, I know how the system works - when you are in a jury room, the judge is very specific on what you have to find to find for each charge. Lawyers on both sides fight over the jury instructions. I think here Casey can still get a fair trial - that is why the prosecutor includes 7 charges and not just one or 2. They allow for manslaughter, they allow for felony murder.

This way, if a juror comes in and really, even trying to ignore press coverage, has a negative view of Casey...but hearing all of the evidence thinks, "I'm not sure this was premeditated..." or "There's a reasonable chance in my mind this was an accident" ... that juror doesn't have to make the decision between premeditated murder and innocent. That juror can say to his fellow jurors, I believe x y and z - and the jury can all agree on the FACTS.

PLEASE everyone keep in mind that a juror has to live with his decision the rest of his life - most people will not lock someone up for life just because he or she does not like that person. Every juror will put him or herself in the shoes of the defendant - there are studies. Sometimes, if the evidence is there, the juror will of course convict on the highest charge. But if there is no evidence, the juror would have to live with the fact that he or she convicted someone for a bias, basically.

Judges try to dilute this prospect by dividing up actual jury instructions. Usually, it says something like, "do you agree that on june 15th, casey anthony feloniously caused the death of her daughter, etc etc." And on and on - jury instructions are usually tens of pages long - because the court really wants each juror to think logically about what they are doing.

And usually, don't cite me on this, this is out of personal opinion, courts will also say that regardless of the criminal charge, plaintiffs can bring CIVIL charges against the defendant where the standard of proof is lower. That way if the jury does not believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" the defendant did something, they know there is still a chance the defendant can be charged with something in a civil trial with lesser penalities where the evidentiary level is lower as well.

/sigh. But yes. I don't think as a citizen I could go in and blanketly convict someone without evidence, even if I felt in my heart they were guilty. It makes a mockery of the justice system. It needs to work for there to be justice - if not, we are as bad as barbarians.

 

[gardenhart]

You are correct in stating: "The Sixth Amendment's impartial jury requirement will be satisfied when jurors do not admit during voir dire that they have been prejudiced by pretrial publicity." Of course, that represents willful blindness.

Moreover, it's disingenuous to say "courts have several ways of overcoming prejudicial pretrial publicity". The only way to overcome prejudice that is the reverse of what defendants are entitled to is to prevent stealth jurors from being empaneled on a jury. However, no such filter exists to ensure that.

To prevent unlawful prejudice, we should preclude its creation.

Actually, I didn't say any of these things. These two sites on the US Supreme Court's rulings on this issue did.

If you feel the SC has been disengenuous about this, I suggest you take it up with them.

 

[STEADFAST]

A fair trial is supposed to start off on a footing that is in accord with our system of jurisprudence. Our system of jurisprudence requires prejudice to side with the defendant.

The jury pool has been prejudiced against Casey. Obviously, a fair trial cannot be expected, because prejudice that exists is the opposite of the prejudice the law demands.

HTH

Wudge! I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this topic. We're in for it now!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

You are correct in stating: "The Sixth Amendment's impartial jury requirement will be satisfied when jurors do not admit during voir dire that they have been prejudiced by pretrial publicity." Of course, that represents willful blindness.

Moreover, it's disingenuous to say "courts have several ways of overcoming prejudicial pretrial publicity". The only way to overcome prejudice that is the reverse of what defendants are entitled to is to prevent stealth jurors from being empaneled on a jury. However, no such filter exists to ensure that.

To prevent unlawful prejudice, we should preclude its creation.

I stand by my statement that people have an inate desire to see fairness and justice and they take their service on juries very seriously. They struggle internally to make a decision they know they will have to live with.

They strain to understand the Judge's complex instructions regarding the law and they will deliberate for days on end.

I do not know what is this unlawful prejudice we can preclude. I do not assume that prejudice has reached a level of being illegal. Who is the accused here. The general public or the woman whose daughter is missing?

Or maybe the press is the accused in this scenario you give us.

I cannot imagine the negative implications of restraining the free flow of information in our society. I do not believe that a perfect system exists but our system strives to give the accused a fair and impartial trial.

If potential criminals do not like this system, and the bad dangers of pre-trial publicity, perhaps the crimes should be committed in other countries with better and fairer safeguards
jmho

 

[want2help]

Casey has been charged with neglect. That has not gone to court. She is innocent of that charge also until proven guilty. That is she is innocent under our laws until a court and jury find her guilty.

She has also been charged with the following:
First degree murder
Aggravated Child Abuse
Aggravated Manslaughter of a child
Obstruct Criminal Invest-False Info To Leo

She is ONLY innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.

 

[Wudge]

I stand by my statement that people have an inate desire to see fairness and justice and they take their service on juries very seriously. They struggle internally to make a decision they know they will have to live with.

They strain to understand the Judge's complex instructions regarding the law and they will deliberate for days on end.

I do not know what is this unlawful prejudice we can preclude. I do not assume that prejudice has reached a level of being illegal. Who is the accused here. The general public or the woman whose daughter is missing?

Or maybe the press is the accused in this scenario you give us.

I cannot imagine the negative implications of restraining the free flow of information in our society. I do not believe that a perfect system exists but our system strives to give the accused a fair and impartial trial.

SNIP

To be a juror, "the presumption of innocence" is a statutory requirement. It's not lawful for a juror to have decided a defendant is "guilty" before they have heard all of the evidence presented at trial. Stealth jurors have decided that the defendant is guilty prior to trial and attempt to get seated on the jury. They're not interested in a fair trial; they're interested in a corrupt trial. This is not a national secret.

 

[gardenhart]

To be a juror, "the presumption of innocence" is a statutory requirement. It's not lawful for a juror to have decided a defendant is "guilty" before they have heard all of the evidence presented at trial. Stealth jurors have decided that the defendant is guilty prior to trial and attempt to get seated on the jury. They're not interested in a fair trial; they're interested in a corrupt trial. This is not a national secret.

And it's the reason, in light of the Supreme Court stance on this issue, that good attorneys are either excellent at voir dire or bring in consultants who have that expertise.

If you feel that the danger of stealth jurors is more dangerous than tampering with the 1st Amendment, I urge you to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Perhaps you can sway them on this matter where others have failed.

 

[gardenhart]

Wudge! I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this topic. We're in for it now!

No we're not. Wudge's problem is apparently with the US Supreme Court and not anyone here because we have no influence over the SC. I can only suggest any further arguments be taken there.

 

[Wudge]

And it's the reason, in light of the Supreme Court stance on this issue, that good attorneys are either excellent at voir dire or bring in consultants who have that expertise.

If you feel that the danger of stealth jurors is more dangerous than tampering with the 1st Amendment, I urge you to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Perhaps you can sway them on this matter where others have failed.

There's nothing in my post that a Supreme Court Justice would disagree with.

 

[Pattymarie]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

 

[CentralFLMama]

I have concluded she is guilty. She will have her trial. I have my opinion. And no I would never contribute to her defense. I dont know if there are groups like that. You could probably google it.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

No I would not contribute to her defense, she has enough money already as is evidenced by her defense team. Yes she is innocent until proven guilty--under normal circumstances--never before in a very public case, however, has so much evidence been released --including her own interviews. Sorry, she's guilty.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

I do believe that here in America all people are innocent until proven guilty, only which IMHO applies to the sentence they will receive during a trial! Some get away with the worst of acts, while some do not, and that is exactly why I feel that as long as many great men and women are overseas fighting for their freedom, that I maintain my right to feel however I choose regardless of the common American laws.
YES I have concluded that she is guilty without a trial. I firmly feel that those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. In saying that, I can also thank my 2 nephews who are Casey's age who instead of taking the life of another, are fighting for the rights of others, and allow me to maintain my right to feel however I choose to feel.
I would contribute to the breeding of cockroaches before I agreed to send one dime to her defense.

 

[Montana]

Are the any What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.


Innocent until proven guilty applies to a court of law, but it generally does not apply to public opinion.

Regards,

Montana

 

[blupencl]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

Oh she's innocent until proven guilty, but she's on her own. I wouldn't contribute any money to her defense. That's what court-appointed attorneys are supposed to be for, well, them and movie star lawyers.

 

[elfie]

I haven't searched for any support groups. I'm glad we have a system of due process in which all accused and charged are able to counter the charges through representation and face the accuser in a court of law. Under the circumstances I think she should take a plea in this case. Barring that, I will wait for the trial to see the evidence that is presented.

 

[whiteangora]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

If they are without financial means, may I suggest that they all go back to work? I chose #4.

 

[technicalconfusion]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

I would not contribute to her defense - this is what public defenders are for - for us broke people!

I mean, I know if *I* up and murdered my child, I wouldn't have the benefit of a dream team.

Dream teams are great - if one can afford them.

 

[Sundance]

She is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

:::looks around at walls::: This doesn't LOOK like a court room.

:whistle:

Oh, that's because it's not.

:thumb:

(Hope you don't mind my teasing you a little. This case is so intense and so many are frustrated with it all. I like to try and break the tension when I can.)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion outside a court of law, and that's where we are now. I'd be safe in saying that the majority of posters here know more about this case than anyone who will be seated on the jury. That's sad too when you think about it....

And could prove disastrous to the State's case. Just think, there could be people seated on the jury that want to ask "Where is the baby's Daddy?"

No way in hell I would contribute to her defense.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Based on the evidence that I have seen and read I do not think KC is innocent. As far as us having fair and even judicial system - I don't believe that. Another person charged with murder that is defended by a Public Defender (And some PD's are very good) would not have the same advantage as KC has with her expensive legal team.