Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[AnaTeresa]

I have a rhetorical question for those of you that disagree with the jury's verdict. I've seen a lot of people who are upset that the jury did not take notes, that they didn't deliberate long enough, that they talked beforehand and made up their mind before the case rested. My question is - how many of you would have these same complaints if the verdict were guilty? If they had come back just as quick with a guilty verdict, would you still have the same issues?

So many, to me, are panning this jury and the entire justice system, based entirely upon the verdict. Those same actions (such as coming back quickly), would be lauded had the verdict gone another way. I think it's important to keep this thought in perspective before we start bashing our justice system, all juries, and these jurors in particular. I'm not saying they should be exempt from criticism, but I do think it's important to try to see things from all sides before saying our justice system is irretrievably broken.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I do not believe that the "Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstantial Evidence"
That's not what happened here....

 

[Just Jayla]

Just as the author of this article must have a RELIABLE WITNESS to the crime, so must this Casey Anthony jury.

I don't buy they feel "horrible".
I don't buy they were crying after their verdict.
I don't buy they did their job and considered the evidence.
I don't buy that they couldn't find Casey Anthony guilty of child murder.

And to quote this group of ignoramuses - the evidence just isn't there to believe them.

There is however ample evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony got away with murder thanks to these jurors -- even though there was not a "reliable witness" to the crime.

It is so nice to still be able to have an outlet to come to where I am not being lectured for being angry at this, not being condescended about what the judicial system means and why I should respect 12 lazy arses that I never even met and certainly have not earned my respect...and most irritating, being told that there was not enough evidence-Something tells me that the people that say & write that did not begin watching this case until the 11th hour and they are taking advantage of the fact that we are just too frustrated to counter them, just too exasperated to try to recount all the ways we have come to the conclusion that she absolutely murdered beautiful Caylee...because they never paid attention, we have to be defensive?
Thanks for this post, it picked me up.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I have a rhetorical question for those of you that disagree with the jury's verdict. I've seen a lot of people who are upset that the jury did not take notes, that they didn't deliberate long enough, that they talked beforehand and made up their mind before the case rested. My question is - how many of you would have these same complaints if the verdict were guilty? If they had come back just as quick with a guilty verdict, would you still have the same issues?

So many, to me, are panning this jury and the entire justice system, based entirely upon the verdict. Those same actions (such as coming back quickly), would be lauded had the verdict gone another way. I think it's important to keep this thought in perspective before we start bashing our justice system, all juries, and these jurors in particular. I'm not saying they should be exempt from criticism, but I do think it's important to try to see things from all sides before saying our justice system is irretrievably broken.

I thought the verdict would take a couple of days and I thought it would be guilty. The only reason I thought it would take a couple of days was because of the paperwork and going item by item, charge by charge.

The state laid out a very convincing case with plenty of evidence. The defense presented nothing.

To come up with a not guilty verdict there had to be a lot of convoluted thinking and argument that lasted longer then 11 hours.

To me it was not a verdict based on evidence or argument or logic. It was something else that led to this verdict and that something else needs weeded out whatever it is.

 

[Annie]

"As for the pundits and legal experts, let them celebrate the outcome. But don’t let them tell you your outrage is misplaced, and don’t let them scold you for analyzing the verdict and criticizing the process.

The judicial branch of our government demands every bit as much scrutiny as the legislative or executive branches. Like any institution, it is fallible and we alone are responsible for holding it accountable for its failures.

It failed Caylee Anthony.

I don’t need DNA evidence to tell me that."


http://www.ocala.com/article/20110710/COLUMNISTS/110709726/-1/news?p=1&tc=pg

A must read article

Thank you! Thank you! Thank You!!! and a hundred times more. This article expresses so well a lot of the things many of us have been saying.

 

[Sweet Fox]

I've been praying that behind the scenes, the FBI, CIA, or whatever branch of government is investigating this jury. First interviewing them one by one and then collectively. There is no doubt in my mind and spirit that this jury was corrupted by one or two jurors who bullied the deliberations into a not guilty verdict for their own self-interests. I believe juror #6 had a lot to do with it. They cared not about what happened to Caylee and cared even less about justice for her--they cared about financial gain from a high profile case.

I've been praying for that too. There's no question in my mind that quite a few of these jurors were only interested in financial gain. MOO

I'm also hoping the State or the local DA will file an indicted against ICA for
(1) Obstruction of Justice and (2) Involutary Manslaughter. Neither of these 2 charges were contained in the State's case.

 

[Sistah Sleuth]

I've been praying for that too. There's no question in my mind that quite a few of these jurors were only interested in financial gain. MOO

I'm also hoping the State or the local DA will file an indicted against ICA for
(1) Obstruction of Justice and (2) Involutary Manslaughter. Neither of these 2 charges were contained in the State's case.

Can somebody be acquitted in a murder trial but then tried on other charges connected to the same crime of which they were acquitted?

 

[Chilly Willy]

But, why should pertinent REAL evidence even be allowed to be brought up on appeal? I just don't get it. If it is evidence it should be allowed in period. If it makes her guilty it is because she IS.

I totally agree, I have never understood the concept of evidence that is too prejudicial. What they heck does that mean? If I murderer someone and it's caught on a surveillance camera, can I fight to keep that video out because it's too prejudicial and makes me look guilty? If the evidence is out there, it should be used, especially if it is so damning that it proves the case.

 

[Sweet Fox]

Can somebody be acquitted in a murder trial but then tried on other charges connected to the same crime of which they were acquitted?

MOO) I’m not an attorney but it seems to me they can because its not the same crime. I don’t think its double jeopardy because it’s a different crime for which they have not been indited or tried.

 

[USARDOG]

"THE CASEY Anthony verdict made one thing perfectly clear: Juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstantial evidence.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/072011/07082011/637652/index_html?page=1

I dont agree with the opinion expressed by the aurthor entirely. I do think as a society we do except more in court then before but is that because we are tired of theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence or because we as a society have more diverse experience than jurors once had? The world is much more open and transparent then before (cell phone, computers, gps's and facebook) that we believe proof should be easy to obtain?

Everyone has had a court room experience or a traffic infraction or needed a lawyer, do these things reflect on jury duty in court cases at trial in the way of needing a higher standard of evidence?

I think the only thing that can be drawn from this verdict is that THIS jury didn't see enough evidence to convict. I think another jury would have sent her to the death row.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I totally agree, I have never understood the concept of evidence that is too prejudicial. What they heck does that mean? If I murderer someone and it's caught on a surveillance camera, can I fight to keep that video out because it's too prejudicial and makes me look guilty? If the evidence is out there, it should be used, especially if it is so damning that it proves the case.

Nope, that video wouldn't be considered too prejudicial. It may end up out on other grounds, but prejudicial evidence is such that it evokes such a visceral reaction that a juror would not be able to evaluate it fairly.

Here's an example I remember from class: say you've got a products liability claim against a tire manufacturer. The tire had a problem which caused a car accident and left the driver in a coma. You wouldn't want to allow evidence that he cheated on his wife, for example, because it's unduly prejudicial and not really important to the case. It will just make it harder for the jury to fairly evaluate the tire claim.

Prejudice isn't looked at in a bubble. It's done at the judge's discretion. Prejudice is weighed against its probative value (how important it is to the case). It's a balancing test where if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the judge will exclude it. (FRE 403)

 

[kelian36]

Originally Posted by Italy View Post

Just as the author of this article must have a RELIABLE WITNESS to the crime, so must this Casey Anthony jury.

I don't buy they feel "horrible".
I don't buy they were crying after their verdict.
I don't buy they did their job and considered the evidence.
I don't buy that they couldn't find Casey Anthony guilty of child murder.

And to quote this group of ignoramuses - the evidence just isn't there to believe them.

There is however ample evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony got away with murder thanks to these jurors -- even though there was not a "reliable witness" to the crime.

I almost want to scream to the jurors--
Did you all wear ear plugs?
Did you listen to anything said in court besides what was spewed by baez???

 

[Solange82200]

http://www.ocala.com/article/20110710/COLUMNISTS/110709726/-1/news?p=1&tc=pg

A must read article

One of the best articles yet... Im glad someone has the nerve to say it.

 

[Solange82200]

I totally agree, I have never understood the concept of evidence that is too prejudicial. What they heck does that mean? If I murderer someone and it's caught on a surveillance camera, can I fight to keep that video out because it's too prejudicial and makes me look guilty? If the evidence is out there, it should be used, especially if it is so damning that it proves the case.

Especiallly when the defense said that Casey was a good and caring friend. The SA should have definitely brought proof that this good and caring friend robbed everyone around her blind, so that she could buy bras, beer, and sunglasses. I think a person's character is important when deciding a case, and I would have been ok with her priors not being brought in, but the fact that the defense lied to the jury and said she was a good caring friend should have been proven false.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Especiallly when the defense said that Casey was a good and caring friend. The SA should have definitely brought proof that this good and caring friend robbed everyone around her blind, so that she could buy bras, beer, and sunglasses. I think a person's character is important when deciding a case, and I would have been ok with her priors not being brought in, but the fact that the defense lied to the jury and said she was a good caring friend should have been proven false.

There are strict rules regarding character evidence, and what can be introduced about a defendant at trial because you are not allowed to create prejudice against the defendant in the jury. Also, prior crimes a defendant committed cannot be introduced. There are a LOT of rules of evidence which played a big part in this case.

 

[joypath]

The author of this article, states that he can only convict someone who he deems a reliable witness who had seen the crime which occurred. Supposing that we believe the witness remembers the defendant, how often does it happen that an eye witness was at the crime scene? So many crimes are committed at night or dark places, in places where there are few people around, in someone's house where nobody but the victim and the perpetrator are, etc. If we are only to convict criminals based on eye witnesses accounts, probably few criminals would ever be convicted!

BBM! AND where does the author get the audacity to declare that HE and only HE can "deem" an individual as a "reliable witness"? The author has set himself up to be the Oracle of Delphi regarding EVERYTHING since HE proclaims that HE is the :floorlaugh: "supreme deemer"! :floorlaugh: For just one second, imagine applying THAT attitude within a jury room deliberation where there would be 11 subordinates to this "supreme deemer"! CHAOS!

:innocent: I give the article exactly what it is worth: another individual's OPINION, an not even an "EXPERT WITNESS' OPINION" :rocker: , at that!

:twocents: No, I :innocent: will NOT declare our judicial system "broke", I :innocent: will lend my voice to those stating that it APPEARS that the jury missed a few (?) :maddening: details within the instructions and/or the evidence presented and that in retrospect, possibly/probably the jury members are having "second thoughts" and wishing for a famous "do-over".

 

[jjenny]

Unfortunately, most people don't like to commit crimes in front of reliable witnesses. And frankly eye witness testimony isn't always reliable-it's a known fact. Circumstantial evidence such as fingerprints and DNA could very well be much more reliable than "reliable witnesses."

 

[kelian36]

Nope, that video wouldn't be considered too prejudicial. It may end up out on other grounds, but prejudicial evidence is such that it evokes such a visceral reaction that a juror would not be able to evaluate it fairly.

respectfully snipped
The jurors didn't evaluate the evidence they had fairly. :innocent:

 

[AnaTeresa]

kelian36, my post was about the prejudicial nature of evidence as it is evaluated by the judge BEFORE the jurors see it. Evidence is evaluated before it even gets to the jurors - these things are hashed out prior to anything being shown. The point of my post was to explain why some evidence comes in and why some is held back in trial, not to start another round to castigating the jurors for having a differing opinion from the majority.

 

[songline]

There were a few suspicious things from the get-go like WHO? was paying for ICA's defense & WHY?..It was reported it was a mysterious donor from CT..Also, some person claiming to be who they weren't but I don't recall the gist of that one..Other then that, which was a BIG deal at the time, I don't believe anything else nefarious coming to light.

I def don't buy into anything Wendy Murphy has to say..When she was on Fox last weekend & gave this scenario the host (?) & all the guests blew her off as :crazy: I did too at the time & haven't changed my mind one smidge since then.

eta..To clairfy, I'm not saying I don't think anyone can believe or even contemplate it IF that's what they chose to do..

Because the story that is so public is "dysfunctional family”,” "tramp dancing while baby missing” There is enough OMG in that story itself and they are brain washed by continuous media to believe that story.
I am just going to say one thing. Where was Caylee? When KC supposedly had her at her boyfriends house, (MAYBE TONY’S) and the boyfriend said NO Caylee did not sleep over those nights.
WHERE WAS SHE?
I will also ask - why is it that some of the people we used to post about very early in the case had to be removed completely?.

AGAIN – THEIS WAS NOT THE CASE – the real case is hidden, ugly, and scary.
So they brain washed you all... YES KC deserves jail...NO the case was not told.

Wendy Murphy has guts she is not crazy at all :nono: