Where did the prosecution go wrong?

[SongBird]

I thought the state did a very good job!!!! I thought they should have pressed with what happened the night of the fight...but also wouldnt doubt the A's would lie about it...so not sure if It would have done any good to seek a truthful answer....I have been thinking about this for days...trying to understand what went wrong....I always thought blaming someone else...like the defense did with (GA) and (LA) was always a no no...I thought the job of a defense Atty was to just defend his client...not go after others ...blaming...would like to also add...did mom and daughter get a hold of lawyer cell phones ...I wonder if they did ...seemed like both at times were looking down busy doing something ...we also saw a picture someone posted on here which appeared to be a cell phone behind KCs water bottle...as for the jury....I think they got it wrong...but than again I like many others...saw the whole trial...have been reading about this case for years...I was able to fill in the blanks...JMHO

 

[miss plum]

The prosecution did nothing wrong. The jury didn't follow and/or understand their instructions, nor did they put in the requisite effort to get a just verdict. Their post-verdict explanations are incoherent, inconsistent and unsatisfying. I don't think they should be run out of town by a mob waving flaming pitchforks, but I do think they should understand they did not do the very important job they were asked to do. And I do think there needs to be a serious overhaul of the jury system, since many of our 'peers' clearly lack the mental sophistication required to process forensic evidence and to understand jury instructions.

The prosecution did a wonderful job but it turned out they were playing to the peanut gallery.

 

[YellowDog]

I think Jeff Ashton's "bobble head" antics hurt the prosecution. He started nodding his head "no" on Baez's opening statement and nodded yes and no throughout the trial, rolled his eyes, laughed when the defense was speaking.......unprofessional behaviour in my mind. I think this had an effect on the jurors. People tend to pull for the underdog.

I also think the prosecution choosing to present the case in chronological order hurt them. This allowed them as well as the defense to recall witnesses over and over and over. This made the trial drag on and on.

Prosecutors should have included a lesser charge to choose from than murder 1. The jurors obviously didn't want to give her death or LWOP but might have settled on a lesser charge.

 

[beachbumming]

The prosecution did nothing wrong. The jury didn't follow and/or understand their instructions, nor did they put in the requisite effort to get a just verdict. Their post-verdict explanations are incoherent, inconsistent and unsatisfying. I don't think they should be run out of town by a mob waving flaming pitchforks, but I do think they should understand they did not do the very important job they were asked to do. And I do think there needs to be a serious overhaul of the jury system, since many of our 'peers' clearly lack the mental sophistication required to process forensic evidence and to understand jury instructions.

The prosecution did a wonderful job but it turned out they were playing to the peanut gallery.

I completely agree. I just wish one juror would come out and say they made a mistake. I think I could take that more than what I'm hearing from the jurors right now.

 

[RANCH]

The prosecution did nothing wrong. The jury didn't follow and/or understand their instructions, nor did they put in the requisite effort to get a just verdict. Their post-verdict explanations are incoherent, inconsistent and unsatisfying. I don't think they should be run out of town by a mob waving flaming pitchforks, but I do think they should understand they did not do the very important job they were asked to do. And I do think there needs to be a serious overhaul of the jury system, since many of our 'peers' clearly lack the mental sophistication required to process forensic evidence and to understand jury instructions.

The prosecution did a wonderful job but it turned out they were playing to the peanut gallery.

I agree that the prosecution did nothing wrong. I'm High School grad. nothing more. The forensics didn't look that hard to understand to me. Jury instructions can be tough but if you take the time needed you can figure it out. Maybe your right. Not enough effort by the jury. Sad.

 

[lowens1975]

I think that lowens1975 means the jury didn't consider the shirt evidence during deliberations.

lol! Maybe I didn't say that right. Sometimes I do that :great:

 

[WillChgo]

1. The prosecution failed to clearly explain that this was a complex circumstantial evidence case with no smoking gun.

And evaluating the circumstantial evidence required not only common sense as the prosecution suggested but a careful analysis of the totality of the evidence. The limited note taking, the failure of the jury to ask for exhibits, and the limited deliberation time suggests that the jury was not analytical in its decision making but relied on intuition instead.

2. The prosecution underestimated (as did I) Jose Baez. In particular they underestimated his rhetorical arguments, however unfounded, and his emotional connection to the jury.

I believe the jury acquitted Casey because they believed that Caylee could have died from an "accident that snowballed out of control," hence reasonable doubt. This belief makes no sense given the huge amount of circumstantial evidence, both in terms of Casey's behavior and the forensics.

Baez called it "fantasy forensics." it was not. Ashton was too evenhanded and logical in his rebuttal presentation of the prosecution versus defense forensic. This was not "fantasy forensics." It was hard science versus "smoke and mirrors."

The whole defense was based on creating confusion. Confusion is not the same as reasonable doubt.

 

[jjenny]

I think Jeff Ashton's "bobble head" antics hurt the prosecution. He started nodding his head "no" on Baez's opening statement and nodded yes and no throughout the trial, rolled his eyes, laughed when the defense was speaking.......unprofessional behaviour in my mind. I think this had an effect on the jurors. People tend to pull for the underdog.

I also think the prosecution choosing to present the case in chronological order hurt them. This allowed them as well as the defense to recall witnesses over and over and over. This made the trial drag on and on.

Prosecutors should have included a lesser charge to choose from than murder 1. The jurors obviously didn't want to give her death or LWOP but might have settled on a lesser charge.

Prosecution did include lesser charges. Manslaughter and child abuse.
So I am not sure why so many people keep saying prosecution should have included lesser charges, considering they did include lesser charges.

 

[Who_What_When]

I think one of the main things that the SA did wrong was to be overconfident. I think they were swayed by the public reaction to the guilt of Casey that they just assumed that she would be found guilty. I’m not saying that they didn’t do a good job in presenting their case but I think they got caught up in the court of public opinion that they didn't spend enough time to really dispute some of the questions and theories that the DT put out there. Yes most of the theories were ridiculous but to just assume the jury would just know better (because of what they (the SA) knew of the history of this case) was a huge error. They should have spent more time showing how it was impossible for George to be involved, by showing a timeline for that day to pinpoint exactly where everyone was on that day, they should have admitted to the dynamics between Casey and Cindy instead sweeping it under the rug; they should have spent more time connecting some of the dots instead of leaving room for doubt to sneek in. I guess hindsight is 20/20, it's just a shame that she can't be retried.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I've been involved with 100s of jury trials and am perplexed by the statements of the jurors. The prosecution did nothing wrong. Clearly, the jury did not follow the jury instructions at all, it appears from their statements they completely ignored them. This case was lost in jury selection, not that either side had much of a choice. What frightens me the most about this jury is they were death-penalty qualified--the thought that people such as this could put someone to death (not KC but in general), just made me reaffirm my disfavor with the death penalty.

 

[tennisgirlsc]

Overestimating the jury - needed to "dumb it down" a little

 

[ConstableCruller]

JMO---For those not familiar with Pinellas County: Highly liberal area. My liberal friend and I agree on one thing: Casey is responsible for Caylee's death.
...(snipped)

Maybe there in lies the tale as to why this liberal jury returned the verdict they did--Pro Defense biased therefore the evidence was viewed from that perspective.

As a lifelong liberal, with friends and family of the same persuasion, I have to say that none of us thought for a moment that JB et al had a case. We were convinced all along of Casey's absolute guilt. And we still are.

ETA: I also thought the opening statement was despicable, and it solidified my opinion of the whole defense team.

 

[crucibelle]

The prosecution made a mistake in over-estimating the intelligence of the jury. As someone above said, they should have "dumbed it down" a bit, and possibly used more 'flip charts' as Baez did, since the jury seemed to like those. *insert eyeroll*

The prosecution was highly professional, intelligent, and didn't stoop to the level of insincere gestures (like Baez's fake smile and "good morning ladies and gentelmen.") It has been my experience that people of a lower intelligence level will interpret these traits as uppity, over-confident, stuck-up, arrogant, etc.

Baez, on the other hand, kept things on these jurors' level, because he's not that bright, himself.... I mean, it took the guy forever to pass the bar! The jury related to someone of Baez's level, so they bought his story -- even though they were given a jury instruction that the lawyers were not on trial, and they were not to make their decisions based on how they felt about the lawyers. This is yet another way the jury disregarded their jury instructions.

 

[AnaTeresa]

The prosecution made a mistake in over-estimating the intelligence of the jury. As someone above said, they should have "dumbed it down" a bit, and possibly used more 'flip charts' as Baez did, since the jury seemed to like those. *insert eyeroll*

Just to bring an opposing perspective to this - I just finished taking trial advocacy. The one thing my professor tried to hammer home to us is that any listener will start to lose focus after 6-7 minutes. Things like visual aids help refocus the listener and help reinforce your point. I think it's something like only 10% of a verbal presentation is absorbed. About the same percentage for visual - but when you combine the two, you get greater retention. It's not about intelligence at all, or "dumbing" things down. Flip charts and other visual aids can win a trial, simply because they help hold attention and hammer your point home. It's trial advocacy 101.

The prosecution was highly professional, intelligent, and didn't stoop to the level of insincere gestures (like Baez's fake smile and "good morning ladies and gentelmen.") It has been my experience that people of a lower intelligence level will interpret these traits as uppity, over-confident, stuck-up, arrogant, etc.

I'm sorry, but "good morning ladies and gentleman" is a well-used greeting by the prosecution and the defense in many, many cases. Authorities are split about 50/50 on whether it's good manners or comes across as insincere to jurors. It's something to consider - my professor said that greetings were always good when you needed to humanize your side of the case. Again, it's not about level of intelligence, it's trial strategy. To me, the prosecution came across a bit cold, and they might have wanted to humanize themselves a bit more. It may not have made a difference, because it is a 50/50 thing, but you really can't knock Baez for doing something that's accepted in practice and taught to us in schools as something to do.

Baez, on the other hand, kept things on these jurors' level, because he's not that bright, himself.... I mean, it took the guy forever to pass the bar! The jury related to someone of Baez's level, so they bought his story -- even though they were given a jury instruction that the lawyers were not on trial, and they were not to make their decisions based on how they felt about the lawyers. This is yet another way the jury disregarded their jury instructions.

It took Baez forever to pass the bar because the bar would not admit him for eight years because of failure to pay child support. It's not really an intelligence issue, necessarily. (I don't think it's smart to avoid paying child support for eight years, but that's another story). It wasn't about his ability or inability to pass the test. To be able to take the test to pass the bar, you must first pass a character and fitness test set up by the state's bar. That was what hindered Baez, not his intelligence level or lack thereof.

The lawyers are not on trial, no - but the manner in which they advocate their case does affect how the jurors view the evidence. Flipping the bird, laughing during closing, saying good morning, how close you stand to a witness, what you wear, how you address the judge, even the inflection or timber of your voice - this ALL affects trial advocacy. It's taught in schools, and there are thousands of books written about it. Neither the state nor the defense were doing anything wrong in the presentation style - they simply chose two different methods. In general, the state is more serious and the defense humanizes, but sometimes it can be more effective if those flip. Or if both hammer on the law, or humanizing. While I have issues with some things Baez did at this trial, I think you're unfairly knocking his advocacy style when it's an accepted and taught method of trial advocacy.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Having thought about this for a few days, I'd have to say that if I came to this case not knowing what I do know about it & only relying on the case as it was presented in court - well I think I would have been quite confused. The case as presented was VERY thin on motive - especially when countered by witness after witness saying Casey was a good mother and there was no evidence of any prior abuse toward Caylee.

The case as presented was confusing with witnesses jumping on and off the witness stand. Who said what became confusing - especially as these jurors took virtually no notes. In a situation like that people tend to start to rely on their feelings to evaluate rather than facts because they can't keep the facts straight.

The case as presented contained virtually NOTHING about Casey's past life history of bad behavior, stealing, lying. Why wasn't Grandma Shirley called to testify to the theft she knew about? It was very close in time to the murder. There were plenty of other hints that this last incident was the straw that broke the camel's back and that Casey was abruptly cast into a desperate situation where her house of cards was falling down around her. What little was brought up about Casey's past behavior was not adequately illustrated. Why not call Casey's friend to testify that GA came to try to find Casey at the supposed Sports Authority job? What about the friend who was called by Cindy when Cindy made the comments about Casey being a sociopath? (Same guy I think?) What about Kiomarie & her testimony that Casey never wanted the baby? Etc. I realize that some of these witnesses have "problems" like Kiomarie selling her story etc. but in a case where the main witnesses - the Anthony family - can and will get up on the stand and lie lie lie (with impunity apparently) you need as many other witnesses as possible to bolster the state's position.

 

[jjenny]

Well I believe prosecution went wrong at jury selection.

 

[Pollywog]

Well I believe prosecution went wrong at jury selection.

I think so as well. I also think they should not have tried for the death penalty and maybe LWOP instead. I think the DP freaked out the jurors who could not understand or follow instructions. I have heard #3 say a couple times that they could not be responsible for the death of another if they found her guilty or osmething to that affect. I guess they also did not understand that it would be another 25+ years before she ever got death. I am still disgusted.

I also read somewhere that some people want a media black out on Caylee's birthday - I think that is a good idea myself. Nobody watch, read or listen to any news that day.

 

[Nenato5]

The prosecution did NOT go wrong, the jury did.

 

[okiedokietoo]

prosecution didn't go wrong - the batter was bad - throw into the mix unethical defense team that made up stories to shock the Jurors in his opening and gave pressers, locally and to Nancy Grace, in 2008 saying "we believe Caylee is alive", and a defense that goes after the person that found Caylee, and then changes theory and goes after the Grandfather, they changed the defense theory as often as I have been changing the tv channel lately when the DT is on, and female members of the defense going on CBS basically saying Roy Kronk is guilty of Caylee's murder and now throw into the mix the real possibity that the Jurors (if alternates are to be believed) discussed this case prior to deliberations because of the Alternate's continuse of the phrases "we" thought this, "we" decided that and juror/jurors that have said on national tv that if the State had charged her with something else other than 1st Degree that they (jury) could have used that (and the rest of her unsaid sentence imo) because they didn't read all of the charges or they would have known she was charged with lesser crimes and throw in a juror that needed to leave on a cruise --- whew I feel much better now .....anyway love love love hugs to all

 

[wallflower67]

Having thought about this for a few days, I'd have to say that if I came to this case not knowing what I do know about it & only relying on the case as it was presented in court - well I think I would have been quite confused. The case as presented was VERY thin on motive - especially when countered by witness after witness saying Casey was a good mother and there was no evidence of any prior abuse toward Caylee.

The case as presented was confusing with witnesses jumping on and off the witness stand. Who said what became confusing - especially as these jurors took virtually no notes. In a situation like that people tend to start to rely on their feelings to evaluate rather than facts because they can't keep the facts straight.

The case as presented contained virtually NOTHING about Casey's past life history of bad behavior, stealing, lying. Why wasn't Grandma Shirley called to testify to the theft she knew about? It was very close in time to the murder. There were plenty of other hints that this last incident was the straw that broke the camel's back and that Casey was abruptly cast into a desperate situation where her house of cards was falling down around her. What little was brought up about Casey's past behavior was not adequately illustrated. Why not call Casey's friend to testify that GA came to try to find Casey at the supposed Sports Authority job? What about the friend who was called by Cindy when Cindy made the comments about Casey being a sociopath? (Same guy I think?) What about Kiomarie & her testimony that Casey never wanted the baby? Etc. I realize that some of these witnesses have "problems" like Kiomarie selling her story etc. but in a case where the main witnesses - the Anthony family - can and will get up on the stand and lie lie lie (with impunity apparently) you need as many other witnesses as possible to bolster the state's position.

BBM: Prosecution was not allowed to bring anything into evidence regarding previous offenses either convicted of or accused of.