[Trailerpark Badass]

Yes, but I think the Anthony defense was more an example of the alternative theory example. They were asking the jury to believe their version over the state's, and theirs was very specific.

They didn't say maybe a stranger took her, maybe her long lost father came back and killed her, they were asking them to believe THEIR story.

Evidence always narrows down the range of possibilities. In this case the evidence has narrowed it down to two: who threw the first punch.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And if the jury did its job seriously it would have to find that beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Z threw the first blow before saying guilty.

Jury instructions often suck, though you’d think there would be some kind of national standard practice by this time in history.

[Tublecane]

“They were asking the jury to believe their version over the state’s, and theirs was very specific.”

So? Like I said, even if they were, why can’t the jury ignore them and rule solely on whether or not the prosecution proved its case? They could easily say “I don’t know who’s right, the prosecution or the defense. The defense seems more far-fetched, but the prosecution’s is the one that has to be proved.”

“Evidence always narrows down the range of possibilities. In this case the evidence has narrowed it down to two: who threw the first punch.”

I don’t agree. It may have been the defense’s strategy to narrow it down to an either-or. But the prosecution’s case was not strong enough to narrow it down that far, no matter what the defense said. What did they have? Casey not reporting it, which was not a crime; internet searches the mother took credit for; the body somewhat near her home; the purported smell of decomposition in the car; residue from a sticker that may or may not have been Casey’s. That’s not much.

What didn’t they have? Any physical evidence tying Casey to the body or the body to the car, any evidence of Casey having planned the crime aside from the searches that are mildly suggestive but really neither here nor there, any evidence of Casey possessing nor attempting to possess the things she supposedly searched for, any evidence of tools used in the crime tied to Casey, and so on.

Based on all that, I could very easily see saying, “Screw what the defense says. Maybe Casey killed her as the prosecution says, maybe she didn’t. I don’t know, therefore I acquit.”