Let’s Try All Sensational Criminal Cases on TV!
The trial of Casey Anthony for the sensationally brutal murder of her young daughter Caylee has been much in the “news.” It began to play out on national television when she was reported missing three years ago, and continued through the trial. Many are outraged that the jury failed to convict Casey Anthony of murder. According to this report provided by ABC News:
Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said that she and the other jurors cried and were “sick to our stomachs” after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.
“I did not say she was innocent,” said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. “I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.”
It has been suggested that the system of trial by jury should be abolished. Michael Graham, the brilliant and completely rational author of the linked think piece, observed with all due modesty:
Any system too stupid to convict Casey Anthony cannot be trusted to decide if I live or die. And finding Anthony not guilty is an act of criminal stupidity.
I’ve been following the Anthony case the way most men not named “Geraldo” have: Watching the headlines and reading the recaps, but not feasting on the daily dish. I knew everything I needed to know when Casey’s lawyers announced her defense would be (I’m paraphrasing only slightly) “My precious 2-year-old daughter drowned, and I panicked and hid the body in the woods, wrapped in plastic and duct tape for six months.”
Next case!
I didn’t need more than that, but there was more. Much more.
. . .
This, my friends, is the jury that awaits us all. Which is why, when my misdemeanoring finally catches up with me, I want to be judged by the bench.
I’d rather have my fate in the hands of a single corrupt, drunken hack from the Massachusetts judiciary than 12 yokels too dumb to get out of jury duty.
A good judge such as presented here:
… would be far better than stupid jurors! What could they possibly know; they can’t watch television as evidence is presented or even during their deliberations. Why should a bunch of such yokels be sitting in a jury box and getting paid handsome stipends just for being stupid and hence there and bored stiff? The whole system stinks. With brilliance such as demonstrated by Mr. Graham, there is no need to sift through evidence because what it means is obvious to anyone with half a brain who pays due attention to the media.
Indeed, the entire system of criminal injustice is stupid and hence produces stupid rather than just results. It all harks back to a ridiculous old document written by a bunch of yokels comparable to those who now sit on juries. It is referred to as the Constipation Constitution of the United States, the document superior to all others (except some treaties, some United Nations declarations, some acts of Congress, some executive orders, and some administrative agency actions) for the governance of the nation — just as abstinence is the superior and only valid means of avoiding the horrors of anthropomorphic climate change.
Article III, Section 2 of that specious old document provides:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Sixth Amendment, adopted in 1791, provides:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic].
Obviously, the bunch of long dead white males — who couldn’t even spell “defense” correctly but still wrote the fool thing — didn’t know any better and didn’t think at all clearly. In fairness, it should be noted that “defence” was then an accepted spelling and that it may not have been entirely their fault that they screwed up royally in substantive respects as well; in those primitive and unenlightened times they had no opportunity to watch Saturday Night Live, news on NBC, CBS or ABC, or Dancing with the Stars. Nor had they the benefits of modern public education. The authors were even unaware that the purpose of sensational criminal trials was to help newspaper publishers to sell newspapers and thus to augment their meager advertising revenues. That is surprising because even then, in the dim dark ages of the United States, there were newspapers.
True, even though invented ages ago and in popular use when (according to Vice President Biden) President Franklin Roosevelt appeared on national television in 1929 to discuss the great stock market crash with the American people, television was not available in those unlamented dark ages. The authors should also have anticipated that Al Gore would eventually invent the internet and that a now increasingly important reason for spectacular media events criminal trials is to enable bloggers to get “hits.” The authors of the Constitution should have anticipated, but did not, the now unsurpassed importance of the media to the functioning of a free and democratic society. The failure of the authors to anticipate that such advances would produce remarkable changes in the way a free, democratic, and modern society must function throws their entire document into amply deserved disrepute; it must be shredded (although that’s not quite what the author of the linked article says). Its authors didn’t know much and what they thought they knew was entirely wrong.
Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
One must wonder how, because of their abysmal ignorance, the authors even managed to find the place where the Constitution was to be written. Maybe once they found it they could not find what was then euphemistically referred to as the necessary house and had to hurry.
Whatever may have been their reasons and excuses, the failure of the authors of the Constitution to anticipate and to deal adequately with critically important matters is unforgivable and remedial action must be taken, immediately: all provisions of the U.S. Constitution — and all similar to them in state constitutions — failing to take into account the true reasons for sensational criminal trials must be declared null and void ab initio. We cannot wait for the constitutions of the United States and of the states to be amended in ordinary course; we can’t wait for the United Nations or even the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court must convene tomorrow if not sooner in special session, before it’s too late, and so rule. It will be their last session, because thereafter all matters now presented to the Supreme Court will instead be decided by media-guided public opinion polls.
The Supreme Court having acted as it must, there will be a speedy, fair, and proper media trial of Casey Anthony. This should require only an hour or so even if Lady Gaga performs for a few minutes. Polls will then be taken immediately. A prompt verdict approved by more than fifty percent of the poll respondents will be final as to her guilt (or, alas, even innocence). Properly found guilty, as she doubtless will be, an immediate poll will be taken as to her sentence, following which she will be flogged publicly as she deserves to be by media personalities on her way to the gallows. The ratings will be splendiferous and the media revenues alone should be sufficient, with proper taxation, to end the budget and debt crises and, of greater importance, to restore public confidence in our system of justice. It will be a win-win arrangement for all except those who are tried in such proceedings; even they may enjoy the publicity and, even if they don’t, it’s like, totally, for the common good; they should therefore applaud it.
It is common knowledge that not all jury verdicts now result in proper conviction of the guilty. That is because of the absurd presumption of innocence rather than of guilt and because an outrageous burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been placed, mistakenly, on the prosecution. And the people who must be convinced are the jurors, often the least enlightened cows in the herd; they are nowhere near as smart and well informed as our favorite media personalities are and, due to their objective analyses, we are as well.
In the Casey Anthony case:
Orlando’s chief prosecutor says his attorneys are disappointed with the verdict in the Casey Antony murder trial but they presented every piece of evidence that existed.
State attorney Lawson Lamar said Tuesday after Anthony was found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter that the case was very difficult to prove. Lamar also said the delay in recovering Caylee Anthony’s remains was a considerable disadvantage.
Since she was obviously guilty, Casey Anthony should have come forward immediately to admit her guilt and to disclose the location of her child’s corpse. By doing so she would have received prompt and fair justice, as we all deserve. Her failure alone to do that should be proof of her guilt more than sufficient for any reasonable person.
According to an alternate juror who spoke with the media following the verdict, the prosecution “didn’t show us how Caylee died, and that was important. … No one could answer that.” That was, obviously, a key question and unless the jury could unanimously agree that it had been demonstrated to their satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, acquittal was the only option — then, under a stupid bunch of antiquated laws. Why should it have been the job of the prosecution to convince a bunch of rubes on a jury of anything? Why wasn’t Casey Anthony, who must have known the facts, required to provide the evidence? Why wasn’t she forced to testify at the very beginning of the trial? Why wasn’t she immediately found guilty if she failed to do so and accordingly admit her guilt? When the jury retired for its deliberations, why wasn’t it plunked down in front of a big screen television to imbibe the wisdom of media personalities who — unrestricted by any rules of evidence or otherwise but able to rely on their own speculations clear understandings of life, the universe, and everything — would have explained when, how, and why the vile Ms. Anthony murdered her child? Even a bunch of yokels “too dumb to get out of jury duty” would have understood; media personalities do a remarkable job of enlightening such people, for which we should all be grateful.
Such ideas have much to commend them in other spheres of governance. We now have very costly and contentious elections to decide who will, and who won’t, become our masters wise public servants. Why not let the media decide such questions? They already do so to a great extent anyway and the process should be carried to its logical conclusion. Instead of elections as currently conducted, in the least efficient and most expensive ways possible, we must use popular opinion polls to decide who wins and who doesn’t. Then, since the pesky Constitution still requires the least educational of all colleges, the Electoral College — rather than one of our prominent universities — to play a significant role, its faculty should be chosen exclusively from among the most popular stars of the media. Perhaps some of the more sterling of the professors at Yale and Harvard should be chosen to assist them; whom should be left to the media stars in the Electoral College to decide as their first order of business.
Adoption of these modest proposals will truly be a Win the Future (or something like that) moment for the United States and for the entire world. There will be true justice and shared prosperity such as we have never before seen, we will no longer be concerned about gasoline prices, mortgage payment, or anything else. The seas will cease to rise, temperatures will become consistently pleasant, and Mother Earth will be saved. Remember — it’s not just for us or even for the media. It’s for the children!
bravo
Mr Graham sounds like a caller on Hannity the other day. He said (I believe he stated he was with law-enforcement)that the juries used to decide with common sense, not having to be ‘proven beyond a reasonable doubt’. My thoughts jumped to how many people have recently been released from custoday after serving many years, when DNA evidence (which wasn’t available back then) proved they were innocent. This happens quite often these days.
As unfortunate as it is for poor Caylee, the prosecution failed to connect the dots and bring the murder to Casey. Teh defense tore up all their points during closing arguments. I place the blame for failure strictly on the prosecutor.
It was, of course, a seriously satirical article; I don’t think the satire was hidden.
As to the blame falling on the prosecutor, I don’t know. A prosecutor has to work with the case he has. If the evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the offense charged is lacking he can’t manufacture it out of whole cloth and there is not much he can do beyond pound on the table. The media, on the other hand, can spout whatever they desire without fear of disbarment or worse. We saw the media treatment in the Duke rape case, and even before there was a trial the DA found himself disgraced and disbarred as he should have been.
The media? They went on about their business as did the race agitators at Duke and elsewhere.
We have an excellent but imperfect system of justice. One of my former law partners, Alan Naftalin, the best attorney I ever knew, was fond of saying that “perfection is the worse enemy of the merely excellent.” Sometimes under our system of justice the guilty are freed. That’s the price we pay but on balance it is not an excessive price.
Our Constitution and juries of honest and competent citizens are the best protections we have against tyranny.
The satire was clear.
The only thing I might fault with is it not being savage enough.
Those who despise our jury system deserve a much more comprehensive, indeed “cruel and unusual”, berating for their short-sighted imbecility.
Don’t hold back next time. Give those fools the extra-judicial punishment they deserve.
The prosecutor may have overcharged. But, facts and professional capacity, including that of the witnesses, are the only tools a prosecutor ever has.
The prosecution also faced excellent defense counsel. I only heard the headlines, but it appeared that the defense manipulated everything possible for their client within the courtroom and on the record for appeal, while staying within the bounds permitted by law.
As one who has been falsely accused (domestic violence)and then told by his attorney to “just plead guilty and get it over with and move on”, I have seen the legal system from an entirely perspective than the legal minds who have never personally been on the other side of “the system”.
The fact that attorneys took most of my money only to throw me under the bus and that I now had a criminal record that left me virtually unemployable. I was destroyed financially. Though I had no previous legal experience I set about researching and filing, pro se, the necessary motions to have my conviction overturned. I was fortunate to have a judge with integrity who overturned my conviction and granted me a trial and a public defender. The D.A. was furious even though there had never been a shred of evidence to support my conviction. He even went to the extent of attempting to refile the case a week before the trial in a manner that would have denied me a public defender. I dealt with many prosecutors from the DA’s office in the nearly five years this process took to play out and found no discernible integrity in any of them.
At any rate I went to trial with a public defender and was found not guilty.
Before this experience I always sided with law enforcement in instances such as the Casey Anthony case, but after having sat in the defendants chair I now truly believe that police often lie and DA’s usually lie. (They also show no remorse when they convict someone they KNOW to be innocent). It appears that Casey Anthony also has a habit of lying, so the jury had the choice of deciding which liar they should believe.
I think a sports analogy might be helpful when considering the media circus surrounding this case.
They don’t award trophies on the experts picks; they still have to play the game. Someone whose future is on the line deserves to still have the trial and the verdict of the jury.
My experience and observations have led me to concur with those who say that the jury by ones peers is the last vestige of government of and by ordinary people still remaining in America today.
I would take my chances with regular people rather than the elites.
I’m sorry you had to go through the domestic violence accusation ordeal; there is something inherently wrong in how these cases are handled; however, you’re comparing apples and oranges. This is the wrong case for you to feel empathy for a defendant.
You may be right that this is the wrong case to empathize with the defendant but the defendant does deserve his day in court without the conclusion being foregone. The jury through the power of jury nullification can reach any conclusion they want, regardless of the evidence; the O. J. Simpson case for example.
I believe that in the early days of the Republic juries were informed that this was a right.
You sound as though you may be an attorney but you don’t seem to understand that a defendant will often feel, correctly, that prosecutors and defense attorneys are merely playing a game to see who can win, all the while their future or even their life is hanging in the balance.
You say:
“For the record: the number of people Innocent of the crime for which they’ve been incarcerated (note: I didn’t say they we’re “innocent” individuals), is 3%. That’s it; 97% of the people in jail were rightfully convicted.”
You don’t, however, address the number of innocent people who wrongfully have criminal records because they were intimidated into a plea bargain by a self-serving D.A. I believe that number to be substantial. I also believe the damage knowingly visited upon the lives innocent individuals by prosecutors is substantial, and furthermore, that they couldn’t care less if it advanced their reputation as a crime fighter.
I might add that if YOU were a member of that select 3% you would very likely feel differently. Especially if you knew that the prosecutor who obtained the conviction KNEW you were innocent but put you away anyway just because he could.
Virtually everyone who has commented here sounds as though they are talking about “the other”, the criminals, a group to which they will never belong.
Don’t be too sure.
Sorry BobNY, the circumstantial evidence was more than sufficient to convict Anthony. What has happened in recent decades is 1) “Circumstancial Evidence” has become misconstrued as meaning “flimsy” or irrelevant, which is not at all the case, and 2) “Beyond a resonable doubt” has been reinterpreted as “must be 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever,” which is utterly insane.
Your allusions to DNA evidence clearing some people gainst the background of a much vaster number of inmates (almost all of them) who are definitely guilty is superfluous. The law of averages and the calculations made through critical thinking end up being right the vast majority of the time. For the record: the number of people Innocent of the crime for which they’ve been incarcerated (note: I didn’t say they we’re “innocent” individuals), is 3%. That’s it; 97% of the people in jail were rightfully convicted. It’s not the jury system that’s broken, but greater society, because too many Americans and too many people in positions of power have lost all sense of proportion and have taken the precautionary principal to absurd lengths.
You are wrong. The prosecutors did their job; the jurors failed to do theirs. You yourself are apparently infected with this post-modernist notion about what constitutes “burden of proof.” Sorry.
“The prosecutors did their job; the jurors failed to do theirs.”
In what way, exactly, did this jury fail to do its job, don? What evidence was there that Casey put that duct tape on Caylee’s face? How does anyone know that it was not either George or Cindy that put that duct tape on her face? How is it known that other family members or friends who may have been in the Anthony residence were not among those who put that duct tape on her face? All that was known was that there was duct tape on her face that came from a roll of duct tape found at the Anthony residence. Further, the presence of the duct tape on her face does not establish how she died.
It’s difficult to put oneself the place of a petit jury unless one has served. One must go only by the evidence presented & that is it. The circumstantial evidence presented does not settle the questions I have posed above, questions that must be asked.
This jury did what it had to do. Damning evidence against Casey specifically simply was not there; passage of time literally eroded it away. It’s a shame the state did not lodge a child-neglect charge against Casey. Now, there is something the jury could have glommed onto, as there was evidence (not reporting Caylee missing for 30 days) for that.
So, if there is anyone among this whole proceeding who didn’t do their job, it was those who represented the state of FL, not the jury.
If juries were composed of people of the same intellectual caliber as the authors of the constitution – the eminent enlightened thinkers and philosophers – I don’t think anybody would object to the jury system. As it is, we see bunches of people who “don’t believe in the DNA” or think it’s OK to shoot a sleeping guy in the back because he might have asked you to wear shoes you didn’t like (Mary Winkler case) render verdicts.
Some people who are to sit on juries are stupid or have already made up their minds. A few of the former and more of the latter can often be eliminated on voir dir, during which counsel for both sides get to ask questions of prospective jurors and have both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. The process sometimes takes a long time and may seem tedious.
As noted in my earlier comment, the system is excellent but imperfect; at least I think it imperfect because I have never witnessed perfection. Imperfection is a characteristic of humanity and so long as we humans are in charge it will persist. Improvements? Possible, of course. But before we charge blindly in their pursuit (and adopt some idiocy such as satirically suggested in my article) we had best consider the consequences and realize that some are likely to be unforeseen.
As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the jury system isn’t the problem (and I recognized the satire), but it is our greater society that is flawed in that common sense has been thrown out the window, and not just by juries.
As Juror#3 said “if you cannot prove what the crime was-…[therefore}you cannot determine what the punishment should be.”-.I blame the Judge-when the Defense was allowed -from the start to “bring in a new theory”-and proceed to derail the whole court and make George Anthony to be the one on trial-the Judge allowed this-and the end was- a true trial of Case Anthony was BYPASSED.
(George is threatening to sue Defense Lawyer for Slander)Furthermore, obvious perjury was “overlooked” by the Judge. ALL in all- a total failure by the Judge and I daresay the instructions- were also misunderstood by the Jurors.
I submit that Prosecution should appeal this case immediately.
“I submit that Prosecution should appeal this case immediately.”
Serious? Uh dude, do you know about double jeopardy?
??????
A DA’s office can appeal if they believe there was judicial impropriety or any other shennanigans. I don’t know that threre were any in this case, but an appeal would apply if there were. There is no “double jeopardy” if the judicial process was corrupted by malfeasance or incompetence.
I cannot say Thank you enough to you, Don Rodrigo.
As a matter of fact, I have been trying to get this
point across to a retired federal judge here in
Florida- even before BEFORE this trial ended (and
I did not watch any of it)-the judge predicted this
would happen from the start-whereas-hoped that
justice would be served regardless of the distractions
from the media and the way the whole thing was controlled
and edited…And,my judge-friend says-”it’s over, live with it.
However, I see a failure of the Judge-therefore -grounds for
the prosecution to appeal for another trial.
While we’re at it, let’s just put every criminal before an admiralty court. The British had the right idea when they did that to American colonists. Civilian trials are just so…. messy and inefficient.
Mr. and Mrs. Anthony and son arrived in court with the intention of “assisting the Defense” in order to see that Casey did not receive the Death Penalty.(The mother and brother -evenwent so far as to perjure themselves)when George found himself in the crosshairs -the Defense -BECAME -became the Prosecutor of George-and George had no defense-very little-and the Prosecution(State)continued with it’s case against Casey- but the JURY-the Press -everyone most everyone was “on the bandwagon” of trial of George. The Defense won by distracting everyone away from Casey- this “cognitive dissonance” led to the confusion and failure of the Jurors. The Judge ALLOWED this-and the Prosecution- chose not to spend to much time and effort-to show how rediculous this one last big lie was…..
The defense won at the time of jury selection. They found twelve “feelers”; alogical emotionalists, not so bright, and the prosecurion never had a chance.
Defense attorneys love amoral, cowardly, and stupid jurors.
Unlike some, I have no means to qualify any of the jurors state of mind regarding intelligence. To that matter however, they appear intelligent enough to have followed very long stand tenants of law and as those laws were given to them in the form of jury instructions. They followed the letter of the law and their instructions….not emotions!
The prosecution floated only circumstantial ‘theories’ and zero direct evidence other than the child died by unknown cause or means. Even the circumstanial theories was unable to ‘directly tie’ the accused to any elements of their theories. The questions to be answered beyond reasonable doubt for each and every criminal element of each charge were never definitvely answered beyond theories. Their entire case was built around theories striking at only the emotion. Only poor evidence and prosecutors lose cases!
On the other hand, more juries than not, assume guilt and are ’tilted’ toward law enforcement, prosecutors and their witnesses regardless of any types or strength of evidence. A weakness of human nature thus, the old saying a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
Nice try. You see the judicial system as a game. The circumstantial evidence was more than sufficient to convict. “Circumstantial” is not a pejorative, but has become so from common usage in this corrupted post-modernist society. It is the jurors who were the problem in their misguided earnestness to “play the game” even though they knew she was guilty, and in their misconception about evidence and their inability to apply genuine critical thinking.
Absolutely correct. Don Rodrigo, this “game theory” nonsense has gotten so imbedded in our society.And, Defense Mr. Baez- wanted to “win”- I was so shocked by Mr. Baez’s statements after the trial before the Press-example”Casey did not kill Caylee. I am sure of it.I was sure from the start..”
And now I can go home and tell my daughter, I saved a life today.
Mr.Baez also stated-”I do not believe in death penalty.-then “we do not do that
anymore in modern society”-something like that.
Mr.Baez – was threatened with Contempt of the Cuurt- but, the Judge withdrew that -actually-decided not to decide..and Mr. Baez -should definitely be sued for slander of Mr. George Anthony.
Most importantly- the state can and should request a new trial-I believe.
The only “critical” thinking they could have possibly carried out is deductive reasoning; this is not their purpose. It’s apparent you have never sat on a petit jury & have no concept of how the process is carried out. (Yes, I have served on a petit jury). Deduction falls far short of the high standard of “reasonable doubt.” IOW, when the question is asked: “Who put that duct tape on Caylee’s face,” & the answer is “I don’t know,” a conviction directed at anyone becomes literally moot because it cannot be done. There is no answer to the question “Did the duct tape on Caylee’s face result in her death.” Again, no conviction can arise from a question that begs the answer “I don’t know.”
I hope you never sit on a jury, Don.
bobbcat…amazing how so many on a political ‘conservative’ site who rant law and order in conjunction with the constitution, have such little regard for the law and the constitution…when tested!
Great to see you’re one who has their head screwed on represents the law and the constitution!
As I constantly repeat, this nation is broken from the bottom up…not the top down. It is the ‘people’ and their irresponsibility not any government whom have destroyed this once great nation!
The prosecutor was the problem. He charged the defendant with first degree murder yet he lacked the fundamental evidence needed to prove that charge. He had no evidence of who killed the child, assuming the child was murdered. The prosecutor’s error is so serious that one wonders if he wanted the defendant to walk. The prosecutor should have charged her with manslaughter. That charge requires only neglect that contributed materially to the death of the child. The mother would have been convicted and sent up for 18 years or so.
People criticizing the jury seem to forget or just not want to understand the “first degree murder” is pre-meditated murder. For those who don’t seem to get it, that means the prosecutor didn’t have to just prove that she somehow killed her daughter, but did so with both malice aforethought and with some deliberation.
The prosecutor should be taken out and whipped by his superiors for being so incredibly stupid since he couldn’t even show beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the direct cause of Caylee’s death.
“The prosecutor should have charged her with manslaughter.”
With the evidence presented by the state even manslaughter would have been out of the jury’s reach because there was no evidence to establish how she died. She could have died from natural causes for all anyone (but most likely Casey, but again, only she can provide evidence of that in the form of a confession) knows. Since there was no way to establish how she died, as well there was no way to establish whether or not she was murdered. The presence of the duct tape surely smacks of foul play big time, but there is no evidence to establish whether or not it was placed on her face before or after she died. It’s really easy to see just how slippery it all gets for the jury when one has a situation such as this where there is only “dry bones” evidence, a lack of witnesses to the deed, conflicting expert witness testimony & family members who purjure themselves. What a mess.
Just what do you stand for Dan? who’s side are you on ? You can’t have it both ways.Our Constitution is the greatest document ever !!!!
It seems to have been obvious to most that the article was blatant satire. See Comment 2 and my comment under it.
The single most flaw in the litigation system is the allowance of circumstanial ‘evidence’ in either criminal or civil trials. Its simply moronic to conclude that engineering circumstantial ‘evidence’ is to be considered the same as direct evidence.
Also, the paid prostitution of ‘expert’ witnesses corrupts the system.
Dump fantasy circumstantial evidence in at least all capital cases and preferably all criminal and civil cases. If you don’t have conventional evidence….you don’t have a case to litigate!
The matters you complain of are ripe for cross examination and closing argument. If the evidence is not there, you see verdicts like this one.
Barza….regarding expert witnesses. Though I don’t know exactly how my idea of correction would play out, I’m of the opinion that ‘expert’ qualifications should be limited by new standards to those who have legitimate and relative scientific works of record. Law enforcements ‘in-house’ scientific testimony would be limited to findings subject to ‘independent’ qualified experts for both pros and def attempting to replicate law enforcements findings with approved scientific explanations. Now, the adversarial platform would be leveled. Independent expert scientific investigators would not be allowed to gain status for only prosecutors or defense sides. If they last testified for the prosecutors side they must next testify for a defense side.
As for circumstantial evidence, that whole realm needs some serious reconsiderations…in my opinion.
It comes down to the quality of each judge’s management of the court’s gatekeeping responsibilities, control over the litigants’ antics, and respect for jurors’ capacities.
I read about a federal judge who allows jurors to submit questions to the witnesses (through his screening and procedures). I think he was (or is) in East St. Louis, IL. Pretty radical, but it gets people more actively engaged and allows the litigants to adjust to what they hear.
Oh, and they can’t switch back and forth. Each case is unique and each litigant can choose whomever they want to testify. If a person is seen as too friendly to one side or another, or just as a hired gun, cross examine the witness about this and then pick on them during closing argument when they can’t answer back.
“Circumstantial” does not mean ‘flimsy’ or ‘flawed’ or ‘illegitimate.’ Perhaps for people like you not familiar with the full command of the English language or the origins of words, we should change the term to something else, so that reasoned evidence — which is what “circumstantial” evidence usually is — can again play its proper role in the courtroom.
“Circumstantial” evidence has correctly convicted people actually guilty of the crimes they were tried for more often than direct evidence. It seems to have worked for a very long time. 97% of the people in jail for felonies, especial major crimes are acually guilty; sounds like a great success rate to me.
don rodrigo- you sound a little narcissistic to me, and also very condescending in your replies to other bloggers. For reasons none of us may be aware of, the burden of proof wasn’t met in the charge of murder. Get over it. It sounds like you’re an unhappy camper, and that makes me VERY HAPPY!!! Why, because everyone’s thoughts and opinions matter. You always get bloggers like you who try to spin the blog into submission by using a few “action” words and phrases, while passing it off as critical thought. You add nothing to the open exchange of ideas, and I’m gettin tired of individuals like you trying to hijack these forums. Communicate with dignity and respect for your other bloggers, or drink some warm milk, shut down the computer, and go to bed!
The only theory left in this awful case is to allege that Casey violated the civil rights of Kaylee. No, it’s not res judicata. It would be tried in a federal court. Separately, the police in this case did a horrible job. Yet, that doesn’t mitigate against the the fact that this was a horribly stupid jury. Maybe we need professional juries. And professional judges. As to Hannity’s shows on the case, far as I’m concerned they demonstrated what a shallow thinker Sean really is. I’ve watched my last Sean Hannity show. Obama, I think it’s safe to say, has made this country as crazy as he is.
“this was a horribly stupid jury.”
Based on what? That they could not answer pertinent questions without using their imaginations? This is another example of a mindset that wants the jury to function in some fashion other than a body that judges the facts as illustrated by the evidence. Facts are things that are known, not the things merely assumed or deduced.
I am afraid that what is coming across to some people as stupidity is merely impartiality & objectivity. By all means, sit on a jury panel if you can & maybe you will understand.
You need only to read a collection of Carl Hiaasen’s articles to know that residents of Florida shouldn’t be trusted with forks let alone serving on a jury.
We have jury trials in the USA. I’m glad of that. And we have the right to say any given jury was stupid, we know ___ was guilty, we would have found differently, yadda yadda. Both great parts of living in the USA. Those bitching about the armchair jurists are no different than those bitching about the jury. Get over it.
“Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.”
Don’t bet on it.
The first experimental internal combustion engine was built by Christian Huygens (yes, the astronomer and mathematician), in the 17th century, using gunpowder as the fuel. By the 18th century, experimenters were trying liquid fuels. The first commercial IC engines were stationary ones used for machine shops and factories, in the mid-1800s.
Airplanes? Try Leonardo da Vinci, in the 1500s. Plans for heavier-than-air craft predated the American Revolution, and awaited a lightweight, powerful powerplant- like (surprise!) the internal combustion engine.
The atom? See Democritus, circa 400 B.C. (He even predicted that it could be a source of energy.) Modern “atomic theory” actually dates to the mid-1600s, as an extension of Rene’ Descartes’ “vortex” theory of planetary movement; Newton used it as the basis for his theory of gravitation.
Germ theory? Look up Augustine Hauptman and Christian Longius. They first postulated it in 1657. John Asdruc, Louis XIV’s court physician, used his influence to vilify them as quacks. In fact, he was the quack- and Louis Pasteur referenced their work in his own.
Computers? See “Antikythera Mechanism”- 2nd Century A.D. Complex calculating engines were used by astronomers from the Renaissance on.
Medicare? France, 17th Century- Louis XIV again. Guaranteed pensions and free medical care, for life, for all his soldiers and sailors. It’s why Versailles has no defensive works- the Sun King wanted to drive home the point that his kingdom’s defenses were its army and navy, and that in return, no French serviceman would ever be reduced to begging in the streets if incapacitated in the line of duty. Unlike other kingdoms of the day.
Television? What do you think the stereotypical wizard’s “crystal ball” was supposed to be? Seeing at a distance is an old dream of humans.
Collateral-secured debt? That was the only kind there WAS back then. Nobody in his right mind lent money without something of value to be pledged as security. Not even the Bank of England, which originally started out in the 1600s lending money in exchange for land deeds; those land contracts financed England’s opening of the New World and the India trade, with similar measures doing likewise in Holland. As for using “theoretical” property, or nothing but a promise to pay later, as collateral, look up the South Sea Bubble scam- which occurred several decades before the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were familiar with government funding by the Obama method- because George III used it all the time. Please note that they also strongly disapproved of it, as in “no taxation without representation”.
DNA? Without Carl von Linne’ (Linnaeus) and his “Philosophia Botanica” in 1752, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace wouldn’t have known where to start in the 1830s. And without them, Watson and Crick would have been SOL in the 1950s.
World War II? After The Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, Queen Anne’s War, the French and Indian War, etc., the Founders probably knew more about “modern warfare” than the average member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today. Keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson was the President who first sent his brand-new United State Navy- and the Marines- to “intervene” in North Africa due to the antics of the Islamists of the day. (See “The Marine Corps Hymn”- specifically the part about “the shores of Tripoli”.)
As for sexting, Lady Gaga, etc., you probably don’t want to know what some of the Founders’ personal correspondence looked like. (Especially not Ben Franklin- he was a member of the Hellfire Club at one point, the old goat.) The Georgians were far from prudes.
The idea that the Founders were a bunch of simpletons who “just could never understand” our complex, “sophisticated” modern world is common coin among the “enlightened elite”. It’s also dead wrong, and mainly indicates that our modern “philosophers” and “intellectuals” aren’t as well-educated as Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, & Co.
In fact, the modern lot probably couldn’t carry on an intelligent conversation with the Founders- or even a hod carrier. For that matter, they probably don’t even know what a hod is. (It’s a wooden tote for bricks, commonly used at construction sites of the era, if anyone is interested.)
clear ether
eon
When the people cannot think for themselves democracy is in trouble. The jury did not understand “beyond reasonable doubt”. They thought it meant “everything has to be proved”, ie there should be no doubt. The jury did not use common sense. Just because the prosecution felt it had to exhaustively list the evidence the jury thought it had to exhaustively ponder all the evidence. Common sense would suggest all that had to be done was to eliminate the trash and be left with the truth. The first issue should have been to ask “Was the death an accident or deliberate?” Because the presumption of innocence is a beautiful thing we would normally want the acused’s version, ie accident, to prevail. But in this case the mother lied so often, for so long, to so many people, in such detail, that her motive for lying cannot be ignored. Her motive for lying must have been very powerful. Her stated motives for lying were silly and not credible. She was lying to hide something very important. If the death had been an accident she would not have needed to lie with the grim determination and perseverance that she showed. Her steadfast dishonesty means that the death of the child was not accidental.
The next question was “Who did it?” and this is easy to answer. Only the mother had the opportunity.
The next question is ‘Were there any facts which made the killing lawful?” and the answer is that none were produced in the trial.
So by a process of elimination we can cut through the garbage and be left with the truth. We do not need to ponder the irrelevant things such as motive or method of killing. We do not need to come to a conclusion on every issue. The important thing is ‘Did she kill the child?” and the answer has to be “Yes”.
Yes! Beautifully spoken. I AM impressed. Earlier I had tried to say something along these lines. It seems people have a problem thinking logically-as
with graph in geometry- ie. people do not have a grasp of “negative’-side of an equation. Your explanation is veryclear to me.
I am still saddened by the Judge’s allowing the Defense to “derail the case” by putting George in the crosshairs. Too many “took the bait” and away everyone went on another “wild goose chase” to nowhere.
Furthermore, I heard a famous lawyer once say “a person has a right to lie”-
one shouldn’t law-but, they have a right to??
I believe that is false.
You did an elegant job of what I kept trying to explain in this thread; thank you.
One can only conclude that Casey’s pattern of lying in the wake of Caylee’s death pointing to the notion that she killed Caylee through deductive reasoning. Again, this is not the purpose of a jury. Why bother with a trial in that case? The purpose of a trial is to present evidence to a body of unbiased, impartial peers who can then evaluate that evidence & render a verdict. This glaring display of a lack of respect for our system of justice (as imperfect as it is) is disturbing. If some of the suggestions made in this thread became official policy, then we would be undertaking the “kangaroo court” in earnest.
Thank you.
I think what Dan is saying is that no human system is perfect and as human beings we must accept an occasional imperfect result. Don Rodrigo is willing to accept 3% of the prison population being wrongly incarcerated. What per cent of wrongly acquitted are we willing to accept?
It happens but what is the alternative? A lynch mob?
Speaking as someone with actual courtroom experience, I’d have to say we are looking at the inevitable result of what is euphemistically called “prosecutorial overreach”.
The case for concealment of a death and abuse of a corpse was pretty much a slamdunk, and wouldn’t have required three years and upwards of a million dollars to bring through the system to conviction. But the prosecutors apparently got buck fever, and decided to shoot for the moon. Instead, it blew up in their faces.
In nine-tenths of the cases like this I’m personally familiar with, the reason has been politics. Simply put, the prosecutor was running for either re-election or a higher office, and saw the case as great publicity from an “I’m Tough On Crime” standpoint. I will be very surprised if this situation is much, if any, different.
Incidentally, the fact that the defendant’s relative urged her to go to such lengths to conceal the body and cover up the death tells me that either (1) said relative suffers from a paranoiac disorder and/or (2) the prosecutors in that bailiwick had an already-established reputation for “slamming the wall” whenever possible, whether it could be justified or not.
The former requires psychiatric treatment. The latter requires the locality to get itself some new- and more rational- prosecutors.
And please note, that in trials under such prosecutorial craziness, it becomes very difficult to get a jury to convict on any but the most blatantly obvious cases. Because most people are fairly level-headed, and can generally tell when the counsel for the State is unqualified for the job.
clear ether
eon
Well said, eon.
“most people are fairly level-headed, and can generally tell when the counsel for the State is unqualified for the job” EON -your brilliance is without question, but, in this situation I have a couple of issues for you to contemplate. 1.-prosecution-tried to ignore(they did rebut)the defense hysterical play from the outset-and prosecution-did not assist George when
he became the focus of the trial-. Prosecution did not seem aware that -Defense had dropped a bomb and it was effective-. The Judge as well seemed to relenquish
the “driver’s seat” to the Defense- and much of th Press and Jury jumped on the bandwagon -for a ride to nowhere..and lost all focus and interest in Casey Anthony…how could they convict when they became thoroughly lost and confused-
confused about everything.
Obviously in the end-the level of “cognitive dissonance” -noise was so high that -jurors could not think, nor hear, nor pay attention to the closing by the Prosecution- although many “experts” said- it was a masterful closing..
“the fact that the defendant’s relative urged her to go to such lengths to conceal the body and cover up the death tells me that either (1) said relative suffers from a paranoiac disorder”
Would this be the Mother of Casey Anthony? This being “fact” adds to the case of her committing perjury as well. I believe the whole”family -father,mother,brother-had conspired to go into court and support defense to “help Casey not NOT get the death penalty”.(As I stated previously.)
George-unfortunately,found himself in the crosshairs and the Defense-becaame the Prosecutor of George-and Judge let it ride…
Defending Casey Anthony’s Release
Ann Coulter acerbically endorsed the nomination of Casey Anthony as “Mother of the Year” and an unfortunate illustration of her view that single motherhood is “the leading cause of all social pathologies.” The bizarre Bill Maher bizarrely equated the Florida verdict with “Republican thinking.”
Coulter has a valid point. So, too, does Maher–between his skinny shoulders.
Keeping in mind that murderous mother Casey Anthony’s exoneration and imminent release do not constitute her jury’s or society’s conclusion she is innocent, there are some dulled silver linings. She was found, “Not guilty,” not “innocent,” based on the evidence submitted and it’s not all over for Ms. Anthony.
Let’s just face up, buck up, and face the reality that Ms. Anthony was acquitted of any serious charges by a jury of her peers in the death of two year old Caylee Anthony. In the steely, technical eyes of the law, she may be as innocent as a babe in the woods, much like the woods in which Caylee’s decomposed body was finally found, but most rational people know better.
In view of her acquittal, characterizing her as “murderous” is a tad unfair, although only a tad. Some jurors have now come forward and suggested she is being freed only because the prosecutors failed to prove either that a murder was committed or that Casey Anthony was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the perfidious act of murdering her baby daughter.
I still say she’s murderous and that setting her loose is, if not the right and best recourse in the interests of long-term justice and societal retribution–the ultimate purposes of most criminal trials–and Anthony’s release serves larger purposes.
Predicated on personal observation, I’d guesstimate that ninety percent of those who followed Anthony’s trial believe she is as guilty as atrocious sin. Then, again, most people were absolutely convinced that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Simpson yet he walked, temporarily. Jury nullification explained that skewed decision, prosecutorial ineptitude–not the complicity of Orlando jurors–explains Anthony’s.
True, it would also have been just had she been convicted of first degree murder, or, at the minimum, convicted on charges of aggravated manslaughter of a child or aggravated child abuse in the matter of the State of Florida against Casey Marie Anthony. Regrettably, those convictions and a finding that she be executed were not to be.
Nevertheless, there are societal compensations in the verdict.
Casey Marie Anthony is to be pitied as much as legally condemned. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4985)
Perhaps as in the case of O.J., Casey’s fate will ultimately come to no good end. But I doubt seriously that it will happen before she cashes in on her potentially very lucrative bad-girl image. After all, most people do realize she wears the blood of her daughter on her hands.