Hmm, maybe the Prosecution was INCOMPETENT?

[itsrobert]

Overcharging Casey on the crime they could not prove.
Undercharging her on the crimes that were easily provable.

Casey could have been behind bars for 20 plus years, but the prosecution was incompetent.

[daa]

1. I have tremendous respect for juries

I have been on 3 juries, foreman on two of them and you would not believe how deliberative 12 people can be. Even before any jury is picked the judge tells prospective jurors that you are the most important people in our community this week, you say what our values are and what we will tolerate and what not. The prosecution has a duty to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". Those jurors are there all do long while you listen to a few select sound bites or idiots like Nancy DisGrace.

[Atman]

10. Thank you for this. Hopefully it will change some stereotypes.

I cannot fathom why so many people make such an effort to get out of jury duty. I've served on a couple of high-profile cases...fascinating stuff, and you are right, juries are not a bunch of idiots. They're given explicit instructions on what to look for/at, they take their jobs very seriously. Unfortunately, every now and then we get a case like this one (or OJ) and the usual uneducated masses in America clamor for a reason...obviously, the jury must be stupid. That is rarely, if ever, the case. The jury was doing their job. The jury sat and listened to every word of evidence, not just what Nancy Grace told them.

.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. + to the 1

[waronignorance]

2. The Casey Anthony Case: CNN and the Dumbing Down of Juris Prudence

Before the verdict was announced, seemingly countless pundits, many of whom claimed to be lawyers, were all aflutter with predictions and guarantees about how the case would turn out. The consensus was that Casey Anthony would be convicted—largely because her attorney, Jose Baez, had supposedly so botched the case ...



Article:
http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/the-casey-anthony-case-when-the-reason-of-law-meets-the-mindlessness-of-media/

A LAW PROFESSOR MAKES HIS RULING

[hifiguy]

9. The most important sentence in that linked article:

"A defense attorney — as a judge will repeatedly instruct a jury in a criminal case—is under no obligation to prove one damn thing." (emphasis in original)

That statement is 100% true and understood by almost no one without legal training.

[bemildred]

14. +1. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Maybe the evidence just wasn't there

[seaglass]

18. It was all there in Casey's head - unfortunately she wasn't talking.

One of the jurors interviewed wanted to know when, who, how, why and it seemed if the prosecution couldn't answer those questions then there was going to be doubt.

[joeybee12]

4. That and a prosecutor who saw higher office by prosecuting a high-profile case...

Like that's NEVER happened before.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Except he retires tomorrow.

[WolverineDG]

7. Would he be retiring if he had won?

I think not.

dg

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Yes, it was announced prior to the trial.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. The State's attorney doesn't

This guy Ashton was given the case in the office.

[bemildred]

6. Absolutely, using the case as a political football. nt

[WolverineDG]

8. Not so much incompetent

as glory-seeking narcissists who wanted to use Cayley's dead body as a stepping-stone to higher office & book & TV deals.

You know, the same shit everyone's up in arms about over the possibility of Casey doing the same thing.

dg

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Or could it be that it wasn't what the jurors would have seen on TV? From what the jurors who have

spoken have said, it would indicate they fully expected the prosecution to describe how Caylee was killed (not needed, see Lacey Peterson's autopsy report) and what the motive was (not required in any prosecution).

This was a purely circumstantial case and there are hundreds of convicts that are in prison because of circumstantial cases. Take a look at Raymond Jennings, who was finally convicted after 3 trials.

http://contingenciesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-jennings-innocent-michael-blake-da.html

"No murder weapon was ever located, and NO gunshot residue was detected on Jennings' hands or clothing, and no DNA or fingerprints found which would link Jennings to the crime, as they say in Cop-show land. Any real detective or ballistic guy will tell you they ALWAYS get GSR on a perp's hands, or clothes after heavy shooting."

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. That some circumstantial cases are compelling doesn't mean all are

That some circumstantial cases are unconvincing doesn't mean all are.

In this case, the circumstantial case was simply too thin, as a reasonable person could easily vacillate about whether any of the charged offenses were actually committed by the defendant, given the evidence presented in court. In many circumstantial cases that result in conviction, the evidence is sufficient to prevent such vacillation (i.e., reasonable doubt). in this case, it wasn't, as 12 ordinary people determined unanimously, even though, by the statements coming out now, they didn't prefer that finding.

Whether this case or others are circumstantial is beside the point. Some circumstantial cases reach the threshold of conviction. This one did not.

[NeedleCast]

16. The Outrage Machine(tm) has moved past this

We're on how Obama has 100% caved on SS/MC now.

Stay with the group. Keep your arms and head inside the vehicle at all times.