Where did the prosecution go wrong?

[JusticeSeeker1960]

http://livingstonparishnews.com/opi...fa-aa2f-11e0-96ad-001cc4c002e0.html?success=1

This is why Caylee's Law is so important & now we need to change the judicial system so that this circus jury doesn't happen again & they understand the ramifications. btw, according to the good doctor on NG who's been working with Casey, she is upset that the public feels the way they do about her.....lol, she ain't seen nuttin yet....

 

[Just Jayla]

I get it now.

This jury did not want to watch Discovery Channel, they wanted to see The Real World, Big Brother, play out in the courtroom. The intellect of teenagers, they have.

Dr. G was not sexy enough for them, but Dr. Spitz was, with all of his sass. LDB was not sexy enough for them in her serious tones, but JB was with all of his bravado.

So, maybe the state should have done one of two things for this <modsnip> jury: Made the case go on for many months longer until they understood what a spiteful B!!&ch KC really is, 'cause there's a lot of nuance there that they did not get, or just plain gotten down in the mud with JB-Examples (and JB would've objected to all of these, but ya can't unring a bell):

-The state should've called ZG to talk about how GA was apologetic but KC spun a web of lies and is suing her.
-The state should've called TonyR to talk about how KC could not come have sex because of the snothead.
-The state should've called Jesse and had him talk about how JB tried to blame him for murder until they could not make it stick
-The state should have called Tracey for EVERYTHING she has had to say
-The state should have had Ryan repeat what he said about how KC often mentioned being hindered by Caylee and how a lot of people think KC is nice, but having known her since he was 5 and being her "best friend," he knows how she can be a total "hard arse" and nasty individual.
-The state should have had Kio talk about how KC was willing to give her daughter over to another single 19 year old in adoption.
-The state should have called Annie to talk about how CA constantly interrupted Casey's party time
-The state should've asked Roy Kronk about how the defense tried to blame him for the murder, but they could not make it work out cause there was no way to connect him to KC
-The state should have called Tim Miller to talk about GA's willingness to get KC to talk, but how CA would cover for the "cheerleader."
-The state should have had JoeJ talk about Mort
-The state should've coached RK, GA to make sure to put it out there that JB was paid $200K in blood money
-The state should've had Shirley talk about KC's spite
-The state should have called the computer store guy to talk about how KC treated Caylee in his store
-The state should've had one of their witnesses blurt out that JB has a criminal record and barely passed the bar because of it
-The state should have had Lt. Under mention KC's reaction to the remains discovery

None of the above is evidence of murder, but they clearly did not want evidence, they wanted to address character. Clearly, because they keep saying they did not care for George's character, damn the evidence. So, the state should've attacked KC's character, made it a mud fight, and taken the objections.

How freakin sad that people really are this dumbed down.

 

[ClockWatcher]

Freakin' sad Jayla. Sorry to say, I came to the same conclusion too, after the first few jurors started speaking out. Thank you for so aptly wording what I was thinking! :clap:

 

[Peepers]

I think the prosecution should have brought in KC cell phone records and pings. It would have showed somewhat where she was when. It would have connected some of the dots. Especially on the day Amscot said the car was left there. I think the verdict would have been different if the jury could have seen evidence to connect her to the car..Just saying she left it there is not evidence in a court of law.

 

[Cheewawa007]

I want a do over!!!! Know it ain't gonna happen, but I want one...

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

IMO...since the jury mentioned the "motive" issue....although, this would be a double edged sword, BUT, I think the prosecution could have played up the "Caylee was in the way" for KC to party, etc. It could/would have made TL and TR the "villans", as well, in some peoples mind.

1) There was the paper in KC's car with her name in various forms of being married to TL.
2) TL, himself, said he didn't want Caylee to stay over at the apt. because of the lifestyle they lived there....wasn't a place for a young child. (paraphrasing)
3) We heard that TL wanted to have "boys" when he had children.
4) Just MORE info re: Cindy calling KC to come home to take care of Caylee....Cindy wanted to go out, etc.
5) MAYBE the "snot nose" comment about Caylee in her IM with TR....and the rest of the convo. about not being able to "see him" (LOL...to be read "booty call") because no one else was around to take care of Caylee.

It seemed the jury just wasn't gettin it. The fact that even though CA would take care of Caylee and loved her....I think even CA wanted to go places, AND, IMO....rightly so....she wanted KC to be a responsible mother to Caylee - like a mother is SUPPOSED to be....not just when it was convenient or a "show" for pics and videos. Almost reminds me of that "16 and Pregnant" show where often the girl wants to go out and they constantly use mom as the "babysitter" and the mom starts to get PO'd and reminds them that it is THEIR child and they need to step up and take responsibility....although those babies don't end up found thrown out like trash....or have a fake nanny.

 

[Solace]

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

Yes, they were because Baez at one point "opened the door" but Perry said you can bring it in but beware once that bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung. I think the prosecution thought it would be considered too prejudicial and possibly grounds for an appeal so they opted to not mention them. They should have done it. But having said that, I don't think it would have mattered with this jury.

The foreman is very opinionated and I did not believe him when he said we did not convince anyone - they came around by themselves. Obviously, someone convinced them otherwise or it would have been a hung jury. The impression I was left with was he did not like Ashton's behaviour and said so.

They did not take enough time; 11 hours is not enough - even if it were for a guilty verdict.

Besides it being an atrocious verdict - this foreman is making money off it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Just from reading some of the comments on this thread, it's clear to me that many, many people (incl the jury) did not understand the death penalty was NOT automatic. The jury had the choice for 1st degree murder AND not give the DP, (it would be LWOP instead). How can people not know this?

AND, if the jury didn't think the crime met the bar for either 1st degree premeditated OR Felony Murder, they could have instead gone for:

- Manslaughter (OR)
- Felony Child Abuse

Neither of which carry the DP or LWOP. She would have gotten 25 - 30 yrs max.

The jury had OPTIONS...many options...more options than most juries are afforded.

How could they not know or understand this?

ETA: Now that I think about it, their jury forms/instruction form likely confused them as well. It assumed intelligence past an 8th grade level. Oops.

 

[JSR]

I agree. This jury discounted almost every piece of evidence, if not all, the state provided them. And I'm not sure why. Either it was because 1) they were not intelligent enough to understand it, 2) they fell hook line and sinker for the DT's OS, or, 3) they were simply too lazy to use their brains or maybe it's a mixture of the three.

They didn't listen to HHJP's jury instructions and erroneously believed that a motive and cause of death were mandatory to convict Casey. Both of those assumptions are incorrect neither are mandatory. Are they nice to have yes, but not mandatory. One juror even indicated they considered the PUNISHMENT during the GUILT phase, which is not allowed during the guilt deliberations.

After over 300 exhibits and 91 witnesses they didn't request to see not ONE piece of evidence or readback. Not a single question was sent to HHJP. And a mere 10 hours were spent on deliberations.

As an american, and a American who loves and deeply respects our justice system I'm shocked and DISGUSTED at how little this jury cared about putting in the time and consideration into deliberations. They were pissed they were sequestered over the holiday weekend and just wanted to be done with this case. And none of them cared they were releasing a murderer out onto the streets who will no doubt not be a productive member of the society.

If she doesn't reoffend (my best guess is she WILL murder again but will ensure no body is ever found this time), then she will become a leech upon society and we will in some way have to support her and her lifestyle for all of her days. Which we would have done if she was in jail but at least she would have had a miserable existence. Now we will have to pay for her all of her life and she will get to live it up Bella Vita style. She's never really worked before and now that she believes (and has been proven to her by her verdict) that she is something special and that she's entitled to everything she will demand that everything be handed to her, or else.

I can really only fault the SA for not doing two things.

1) they assumed these jurors were intelligent. They should have really spoon feed the forensics to them. JA is an extremely bright man, and I think he gave the jury too much credit in assuming they could follow along with his thinking and the jury just didn't have that level of critical thinking. Because even if you discounted all the testimony of every A family member it was still clear as day with all of the other testimony and evidence that Casey and Casey alone was responsible for the murder of Caylee, and that there was NO accident.

How they came away thinking it was an accident when there was no evidence or testimony to prove it is beyond me. They speculated big time. And I guess it was ok for them to SPECULATE that it was an accident but had a hard time with convicting ICA with NO CAUSE OF DEATH. So they could make the leap that it was an accident but not a murder??? Defies all logic. Especially when accidents don't require one to put duct tape over the mouth and nose of a toddler.

2) I think the SA's approach in regards to the A family dynamics was the wrong way to go. To paint this family as a loving family is a tad disingenuous. I think it would have been better to show the family exactly what they were, a severely dysfunctional family. The only thing I agreed with what JB said is that Caylee died as a result of the dysfunction within the A family. He's right but Caylee's death was no accident it was murder and she was killed in part due to the horrendous hatred Casey had for her mother. She wanted to destroy her mother, and she accomplished that by the best way she knew how, by destroying Caylee. I think the jury might have understood the drama between the family had the SA highlighted their dysfunction and spun it to their advantage.

Overall, I'm inclined to believe that there's not too much that the SA could have done to change the outcome of this case. They just had the misfortune of getting these particular 12 misguided jurors who simply didn't listen, seem to care, and didn't have the critical thinking skills to understand the science.

Because had any of them understood the science there's no way ANY of them could get a good night's sleep again.

 

[JSR]

Just from reading some of the comments on this thread, it's clear to me that many, many people (incl the jury) did not understand the death penalty was NOT automatic. The jury had the choice for 1st degree murder AND not give the DP, (it would be LWOP instead). How can people not know this?

AND, if the jury didn't think the crime met the bar for either 1st degree premeditated OR Felony Murder, they could have instead gone for:

- Manslaughter (OR)
- Felony Child Abuse

Neither of which carry the DP or LWOP. She would have gotten 25 - 30 yrs max.

The jury had OPTIONS...many options...more options than most juries are afforded.

How could they not know or understand this?

ETA: Now that I think about it, their jury forms/instruction form likely confused them as well. It assumed intelligence past an 8th grade level. Oops.

The problem with the above is that they're not even ALLOWED to consider the punishment when they are deciding the guilt of a defendant. They did not follow the law when they made their decision, like AT ALL!

 

[Schu7]

Overall, I'm inclined to believe that there's not too much that the SA could have done to change the outcome of this case.

I restfully disagree here. Simply put here. The State should have left out the computer searches, the chloroform and duck tape as a cause of death. The State should have gone with the simple truths.
1 - The Casey lies.
2 - The Cindy - Casey fighting from before Caylee was born.
3 - The constant money thief by Casey from Cindy and everyone else.
4 - The lack of Casey having a job for years.
5 - The Cindy - Casey showdown and fight on the 15TH.
6 - The State should have used cell phone ping records to place everyone accurately on the key time frames with a nice simple chart for the jurors.
7 - The State should have been ready to disprove with evidence all of Cindy's lies. George's lies. And Lee's lies. And no waiting for the rebuttal to do that. The State should have gone after the pack of protecting family liars hard and fast from the start.

The rest would have taken care of itself. Including justice for Caylee. And all done with a much quicker trial.

MOO

 

[JSR]

I restfully disagree here. Simply put here. The State should have left out the computer searches, the chloroform and duck tape as a cause of death. The State should have gone with the simple truths.
1 - The Casey lies.
2 - The Cindy - Casey fighting from before Caylee was born.
3 - The constant money thief by Casey from Cindy and everyone else.
4 - The lack of Casey having a job for years.
5 - The Cindy - Casey showdown and fight on the 15TH.
6 - The State should have used cell phone ping records to place everyone accurately on the key time frames with a nice simple chart for the jurors.
7 - The State should have been ready to disprove with evidence all of Cindy's lies. George's lies. And Lee's lies. And no waiting for the rebuttal to do that. The State should have gone after the pack of protecting family liars hard and fast from the start.

The rest would have taken care of itself. Including justice for Caylee. And all done with a much quicker trial.

MOO

BBM.
I agree with some of what you said which I've bolded above.

The only problem with the other ideas is that the defense would have argued and would have won to keep out a lot of what you suggested. Mostly due to relevance to the actual indictment and murder charge.

I agree that there was a lot of evidence the jury DID not hear, but that was only because the evidence fell under the hearsay rules or didn't point to the actual murder charge and just proved how bad a character Casey had.

Hearing Shirley tell LE that she knew Caylee was dead because Casey hated her mother more than she loved Caylee is exactly what the jury needed to hear as part of the motive of why she killed Caylee and why she didn't just leave Caylee with her parents to raise. Unfortunately that evidence wouldn't have been allowed.

I think the SA should have left the duct tape evidence in, as I truly think that was the cause of death and should have left the searches and chloroform out as you suggested. I think it confused the jury and made them think the state was jumping back and forth from the cause of death being the duct tape or the chloroform.

Either way the main problem in this case wasn't how the state presented it's case, it was the jury. The 12 jurors were simply NOT a competent jury to hear this type of case. Either from their lack of wanting or WILLING to listen to the evidence or the lack of courage to stand up to other more forceful jurors. The first mistake the SA made was picking these particular jurors.

 

[Schu7]

BBM.
The only problem with the other ideas is that the defense would have argued and would have won to keep out a lot of what you suggested. Mostly due to relevance to the actual indictment and murder charge.

I am not a lawyer. But from what I do know of the law, I think you are wrong here. IF the State had put motive up as a main item in their case, then the evidence of fighting, stealing, etc... would have been allowed in. But with a stipulation that the evidence was only to be consider as to motive to the jury. Ever so strangely the State left motive out of their main case. Which is more then bizarre. Think about it. A motive is there to be used. A motive that can be easily proved and understood. Yet the State does not present any motive at all. In a circumstantial case one must fill in as many holes as possibly. So why leave out motive??? Can you answer or help me here please.

 

[JSR]

I am not a lawyer. But from what I do know of the law, I think you are wrong here. IF the State had put motive up as a main item in their case, then the evidence of fighting, stealing, etc... would have been allowed in. But with a stipulation that the evidence was only to be consider as to motive to the jury. Ever so strangely the State left motive out of their main case. Which is more then bizarre. Think about it. A motive is there to be used. A motive that can be easily proved and understood. Yet the State does not present any motive at all. In a circumstantial case one must fill in as many holes as possibly. So why leave out motive??? Can you answer or help me here please.

I do think the SA showed part of the motive, which was that Casey wanted her Bella Vita free of the responsibility of having Caylee.

No DT worth their weight in gold would allow any such stipulation you suggested above to be entered.

The problem is that evidence that is entered has to be relevant and if it is more inflammatory than probative will not be allowed. Evidence of Casey's previous felonies i.e. the checking stealing and what not is just inflammatory and doesn't go towards proving any of the claims in murder charge. I don't think motive for the killing is what stopped the jury.

It was the cause of death. Which wasn't needed or wasn't mandatory. And some fool on the jury told the entire panel that it was necessary in order to convict. My best bet is that it was Jennifer Ford, based off her comments and the fact that she was the VERY first juror to come forward. I think she pushed and pushed hard for the acquittal.

 

[Madeleine74]

And how would one counter a lie that CA would have told about the fight? Because had the state tried to bring in evidence about that fight (which had no independent corroboration or witnesses who would say so), CA would have lied about that, too. And ICA wasn't taking the stand...

So how exactly would one PROVE a fight even occurred if your witness lies about it?

 

[wallflower67]

Been thinking more about this:
1. Prosecution overcharged. Should have stuck with Aggrevated Child Abuse resulting in the death of a child...which is felony murder. Pointed out that premeditation only takes the time between putting on strip one of duct tape and strip 3.

2. Or even just stuck with Aggrevated Child Abuse. Death penalty should not have been on the table.

3. Too much time spent on chloroform. I understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative anaylsis. I've had a LOT of chemistry. The jury members were not chemists. I felt this might have been over their head, esp if they were bored. Plus, there was no evidence of KC actually making chloroform. This was the only thing they had as far as premeditation, and since I don't think they could or did prove it, it distracted from the overall goal of getting KC convicted of "something bad."

4. This is not the prosecution's fault, but George looked shady on the witness stand. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he did anything wrong, but he did come off as argumentative and defensive...which makes people think he is suspicious. I cringed at some of his testimony.

5. Prosecution should have "dumbed down" some of the "big words" used. Defined them. There were times when I wondered if certain people knew the definition of certain words. True, the jury could have asked what something meant...but many people write off stuff they don't understand as unimportant, thinking some of the rest of the conversation makes sense. Think they can put an undefined word in context with the rest and assume they do understand.

ETA:
6. Prosecution did not spend enough time on rebuttal.

I hope I can find this post when I come back to edit or add to it

 

[Nefriahaia]

I get it now.

This jury did not want to watch Discovery Channel, they wanted to see The Real World, Big Brother, play out in the courtroom. The intellect of teenagers, they have.

Dr. G was not sexy enough for them, but Dr. Spitz was, with all of his sass. LDB was not sexy enough for them in her serious tones, but JB was with all of his bravado.

So, maybe the state should have done one of two things for this <Modsnip> jury: Made the case go on for many months longer until they understood what a spiteful B!!&ch KC really is, 'cause there's a lot of nuance there that they did not get, or just plain gotten down in the mud with JB-Examples (and JB would've objected to all of these, but ya can't unring a bell):

-The state should've called ZG to talk about how GA was apologetic but KC spun a web of lies and is suing her.
-The state should've called TonyR to talk about how KC could not come have sex because of the snothead.
-The state should've called Jesse and had him talk about how JB tried to blame him for murder until they could not make it stick
-The state should have called Tracey for EVERYTHING she has had to say
-The state should have had Ryan repeat what he said about how KC often mentioned being hindered by Caylee and how a lot of people think KC is nice, but having known her since he was 5 and being her "best friend," he knows how she can be a total "hard arse" and nasty individual.
-The state should have had Kio talk about how KC was willing to give her daughter over to another single 19 year old in adoption.
-The state should have called Annie to talk about how CA constantly interrupted Casey's party time
-The state should've asked Roy Kronk about how the defense tried to blame him for the murder, but they could not make it work out cause there was no way to connect him to KC
-The state should have called Tim Miller to talk about GA's willingness to get KC to talk, but how CA would cover for the "cheerleader."
-The state should have had JoeJ talk about Mort
-The state should've coached RK, GA to make sure to put it out there that JB was paid $200K in blood money
-The state should've had Shirley talk about KC's spite
-The state should have called the computer store guy to talk about how KC treated Caylee in his store
-The state should've had one of their witnesses blurt out that JB has a criminal record and barely passed the bar because of it
-The state should have had Lt. Under mention KC's reaction to the remains discovery

None of the above is evidence of murder, but they clearly did not want evidence, they wanted to address character. Clearly, because they keep saying they did not care for George's character, damn the evidence. So, the state should've attacked KC's character, made it a mud fight, and taken the objections.

How freakin sad that people really are this dumbed down.

 

[yllek]

While I personally believe that this was a case of premeditated murder by Casey Anthony and I have great respect for the Prosecuting Attorneys and Judge Perry, there are many things that had me nervous during the trial, but I kept assuring myself the lies, non-reporting, and post-crime behavior would be enough for any jury to at least find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. I was wrong.

Some factors that I feel contributed to the Not Guilty verdict:

1. Rushed jury selection

2. HHBP made jury feel like they were doing a favor, rather than performing a duty (imo, this was the mindset prevalent during deliberation)

3. Setting up the As to be the good guys at the very start; not anticipating that they would be evasive and change stories, as the State had experienced with this clan for 3 years. Being driven to impeach your own witness is never a good sign, imo...

4. Letting CA and GA ramble; not coaching George (effectively) on appropriate responses and predictable reactions from those who are unfamiliar with the case

5. Focusing too much on proving innovative science

6. Dr. G came across as defensive; she got her points in, but she did not come off well to the jury, imo (and I love her). Two of the FBI witnesses were downright awful and hard to watch on the stand (needed training badly) and their lack of confidence made their testimony appear contradictory to Dr. Vass and other State experts, even though it wasn't. To pull out the fact that the testimony was actually consistent, Ashton had to push too hard on cross, imo. I think the seeds of doubt had already been planted and the science was disregarded by the jury early on...

7. Not pushing the State's witnesses to explain why they didn't call 911 about the smell (George, towing mgr) - denial and relief at no body in the trunk would have been valid excuses directly from George and Mr. Burch, imo. Hearing it from them proactively would have been much better than allowing the Defense to attack it as suspicious or indicative of no decomp smell being present.

8. Not doing a better job alluding to motive (I know they don't have to prove it, but they should know the jury wants to understand "why")... I think Ashton and LDB did a good job with it in Closing, but it should have been more of a running theme throughout the trial, imo. I think this jury, who everyone knew was not taking notes, were making up their minds before they entered deliberations...

9. Not apparently gauging social media opinions (free mock jury, imo) like the Defense did. This is something Baez did right; he got a view into what trial watchers outside of the jury room were feeling and how they were reacting to evidence, witnesses, etc... He adapted his strategy accordingly. It was easier for him to change up because his story was a work of fiction, imo, but the State could have changed some strategies without compromising the integrity of their case or their evidence.

As much as I love Jeff Ashton, for example, it was obvious to me that his passion and justified disdain for Baez would come off badly to the jury who did not have the 3 year history for reference. Mr. Ashton is a very charming man with a great smile and demeanor in interviews; he could have toned it down a bit early on if he knew it might affect his ability to get Caylee the verdict he thought she deserved. I'm not suggesting any attorney needs to win a congeniality contest to win a case, but it's foolish not to think that a jury considering an attorney rude or condescending might affect their judgments; especially if the opposing attorney is effectively working the "every man affable" angle and accusing the State of being bullies to his client in the first place. Even moreso if you already know you have a couple of jurors who were statistically more apt to be sympathetic to the defense because you couldn't get them stricken in the selection process.

I think the State did well overall and put on a much better case than the defense; but the defense did a good job at gauging and playing to the jury (and distracting them from the very incriminating circumstantial evidence and the cutting edge forensic science). If I'd been on the jury, nothing could convince me that Casey Anthony was not responsible after hearing her lies firsthand in the tapes and seeing how she misled and reacted to her parents (especially her father; no way to see those early tapes and think he was in any way involved). But, I think maybe Casey did get a jury more akin to "her peers" than my peers when it comes to determining fact from fiction.

JMO after two weeks of reflection... Hindsight is 20/20...

 

[Dr.Fessel]

The should have never arrested Casey in the beginning and just bugged every phone the Anthony's had and every car and room in their house.

 

[Lady Rider]

Like many I just can't comprehend under all or any of the scenarios how they could find 12 people who all found her not guilty. At the very least I would of expected the least of the murder charges, or a hung jury, but never the results we got. Some could of had reasonable doubt but all 12? Nope I don't understand it either.

So then does the jury think George was responsible for this if they don't think Casey was even guilty of manslaughter? If it wasn't Casey who the heck do the jury think was responsible? That nagging thought alone should drive them nuts.

Shaking my head..... I read everything here on the trials I follow but just rarely feel the need to comment, but this time I just have to add my 2 cents that I really don't understand these jurors.

I had the same problem as you did Lil. I believe now as I look back on it that some of the jurors were not really aware that you do not have to prove cause of death. Perfect example (Scott Peterson case) Their ignorance caused this not guilty verdict. I can't understand why within those 11 hours of deliberation that they did not look at the evidence, watch tapes, photos etc. nothing.......... I believe they wanted more of a CSI ending with more forensics and again jury ignorance. I was not able to see the trial everyday but what I did see, I think the prosecution should have made more of a point that any forensic evidence would be completely destroyed with Caylee being in the swamp for over 6 months. In this case justice did not prevail. Sad but true......