I wasn’t talking about OJ. Only this case.
(
Preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt are two different standards, btw. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is not a standard)
And sure, any identifiable group of human beings can be populated solely by morons. However, it is very different watching news tabloid coverage and being in the courtroom as a juror. One is not even close to the other.
Sure, Anthony strikes me as a horrible human being. If I was forced to place a bet, I’d bet on she did it.
Having said ALL that, it is up to the state to prove it. And from what I (and many others) saw, the State didn’t.
I realize that these kinds of cases are immensely frustrating. But having Prosecuted as long as I did, I can tell you it is VITAL to the survival of America that this system works. The State must be put to it’s proof. If not ...
You state that watching bits of a trial and being on the jury are two very different things. You then go on to state that the prosecution did not prove the case. So you were a member of the jury? Or just like to have things both ways?
You say it is very different watching news tabloid coverage and being in the courtroom as a juror. Are you implying that the jurors have more or better insight as to the case? I would disagree if that is your opinion. Between Tru-TV and HLN there hasn't been much of the trial that wasn't televised, and the tv audience most certainly sees more than when the jury is taken out of the courtroom.
While I'd agree the state could have put together a better case organising the facts and focusing less on certain areas, based on the evidence and their witnesses and the excellent closing statements by Linda Burdick, I think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt Casey marie Anthony killed her daughter.
Do you think a jury who considered Baez opening statement EVIDENCE isn’t stupid because that is what the alternate juror said tonight.
He said it was an accident that turned into a crime scene. Yes, that is just freaking brilliant.
Nice posts on this subject. Prosecutors have incredible amounts of power. Usually exercised responsibly.
But prosecutors can go terribly awry and the jury is all that stands in the way. It is better for juries to make mistakes in some cases than to give so much power to a small group of prosecutors.
I lived in LA during the McMartin preschool case. The only sensible folks in that whole mess were the jurors. The prosecution deserved to have their teeth kicked in. Even though they lost the case, they still ruined the defendants’ lives. OTOH, at least the political ambitions of the prosecutor, which drove that case, were thwarted. It’s clumsy and sometimes grossly wrong, but imho, the jury system rocks.
My experience was different than yours. I was a civil litigator for a couple of decades. Generally, juries did a pretty good job on the cases I handled, win or lose. Since then, I had hoped to sit on a jury. But for some reason, criminal defense attorneys take one look at me and challenge. So I’ve never been able to be a juror.
I dont get it though. It is her child, her dependent. Shouldnt she at least be charged with criminal neglect that led to the death of her child? Or something along those lines, im no lawyer..
You are warped. The system manifestly does not work. The innocent are convicted every day. The guilty are set free every day.
The weakest link is the jury. As long as people like you keep staffing juries with stupid, incompetent people injustices and outrages will continue to be the product of your system.
If she were a man, she would have absolutely been convicted. Ponder the implications of that for your system.
Blaming the prosecution is monday morning quarterbacking.