[aruanan]

“the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?””

The jury's duty is to determine whether the prosecution has made its case in demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt its assertion, against the presumed innocence of the accused, that the accused is guilty. That is, the jury is not to try to determine, in spite of the prosecution's bungling of a case, whether they believe the accusation, and convict anyway. They are there solely to determine the adequacy of the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not there to stir in a package of "Prosecution Helper" in order to assist the prosecution in getting a conviction. Even if they believe the accused may be guilty, if the prosecution has failed to establish this--and that doesn't mean "influence the feelings of the jury"--then they are to acquit. In other words, the jury is there to judge the prosecution's case, not the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In addition, a second important duty of the jury, in the instance of the prosecution of a case which is just nuts (not necessarily this one), is to say, "Hey, you've proved your case, but the case should never have come to trial because it's based on an insane law and we're sending you guys a message about this by throwing it out."

[eddie willers]

Unanswered questions:

When did she die? We don’t know.
Where did she die? We don’t know.
How did she die? We don’t know.

Given the above, how could the prosecution believe it could get a Murder One?

Plenty of blame to go around that evidence was lost...but lost it was.

If there had been a charge of gross negligence (culpa lata) we would still be bitching....but at least Casey would be incarcerated for a number of years.

The prosecution simply sought higher charges than the evidence supported.