Casey Anthony Not Guilty Verdict

[Teasing the Korean]

I think there is something to be said about that - when I saw that they had reached a verdict I was 100% certain it was guilty due to the short time spent in deliberations after such a long trial...

So you're saying it's better that someone be CONVICTED after a relatively short deliberation rather than acquitted? If I have the misfortune of being on trial, I hope you're not on my jury.

[Tim McG]

This is why I don't watch "the news." I read the paper, or the internet, and choose the stories I want to read. I've only given a glance to news clips on this story, and while recognizing it as a really sad story I've always moved on to reading something more substantial/less gossip-oriented.

It's interesting how much of the public had already convicted the accused. My own mother made the comment that Anthony did not report her child missing for a month, and based on that alone she should have been guilty. Still, for so many who didn't sit on the jury to arrive at such a serious conclusion seems...hasty.

I'm with you, Jon.

[Dan Gould]

No, I am saying that when the evidence seems clear and convincing, and the defense makes obvious missteps like promising evidence in their opening argument and not delivering any, a quick verdict is more likely to be one of guilty.

[JSngry]

Alternate juror supports verdict in Anthony trial

http://news.yahoo.co...-011307290.html

Huekler, the alternate juror, said the state didn't prove Casey played a role in Caylee's death. "The prosecution never gave any really motive of why Casey would have killed her daughter," he said, dismissing their contention that Casey wanted a carefree lifestyle unencumbered by the duties of motherhood.

"And then they didn't show us how Caylee died," he said. "They didn't give us any type of explanation for that."

Huekler found the defense theory more convincing. The defense team said Caylee accidentally drowned in the Anthony family's backyard pool and that, rather than reporting the death, the family covered it up.

"There was some type of horrific accident," Huekler told reporters. "But for some reason ... they made an accident look like a murder scene."

Huekler said he believed more than one person knew what happened to the little girl, and he suspected Casey's father George Anthony was hiding something.

I've already spent more time thinking about this than I should, but isn't the normal reaction when a child falls into a pool to call 911 and see if there is any chance the child can be revived?

This would be like the Wardell Grey of child deaths...or some other kind of junkie lunacy...

[Jazzmoose]

I've never understood this holier-than-thou, "this is what's wrong with the country" reactions when a murder and trial like this gets a lot of attention. Why shouldn't people care, or follow the case and then talk about the verdict?

It has absolutely no impact on my life, or those around me, or 99% if the population. Why should I care?

[Dan Gould]

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

In this Organissimo thread, we discussed our experiences with jury duty. I stand by what I said in that thread:

One thing I will say about my time in these juries - I used to wonder how OJ's jury acquitted him. Now that I've sat on a few, I no longer wonder. OJ probably could've sued the Goldmans for lost revenue and won with the last group I was with. Several of my fellow jurists were complete morons. You can tell that they don't make you take an intelligence test to sit on a jury. It might be time to start.

I am not the least bit surprised by this verdict. I truly believe that this country is getting too dumb for its own justice system. They are far too easily swayed, ignore testimony, latch onto a single "fact" and misunderstand the word "reasonable" dramatically.

[JSngry]

I truly believe that this country is getting too dumb for its own justice system. They are far too easily swayed, ignore testimony, latch onto a single "fact" and misunderstand the word "reasonable" dramatically.

There are those who would say that the same holds true for the political system as well...

[alankin]

Sentence for lying = 4 years - time served.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I truly believe that this country is getting too dumb for its own justice system. They are far too easily swayed, ignore testimony, latch onto a single "fact" and misunderstand the word "reasonable" dramatically.

There are those who would say that the same holds true for the political system as well...

I bit my tongue on my post because this is not a political discussion but I do agree with you.

[Shawn]

I truly believe that this country is getting too dumb for its own justice system. They are far too easily swayed, ignore testimony, latch onto a single "fact" and misunderstand the word "reasonable" dramatically.

There are those who would say that the same holds true for the political system as well...

sad but true

[Noj]

Perhaps lawyers shouldn't be the ones to select the jury. A fair jury would be a random jury.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Perhaps lawyers shouldn't be the ones to select the jury. A fair jury would be a random jury.

The lawyers don't pick the jury. It's a random group of "peers". The lawyers get a limited number of challenges to swap out a few of them, but they sometimes wind up with "worse" jurors than if they had just left the original in place. The problem is the pool of "peers".

Wait until you get the chance to sit on a jury. You'll find yourself shaking your head at some of the things people say during deliberations. Loony stuff.

[JSngry]

Then again, if you hope to get a jury of peers for a psycho baby-killer momma, compromises will have to be made!

[Noj]

Right, I'm just saying the lawyers shouldn't have any challenges at all. It doesn't take much to sabotage any hope for well-reasoned discussion. I imagine it could be as simple as eliminating one juror who shows the initiative, capability, and leadership qualities to spur the jury toward the correct decision. One in twelve seems a likely ratio to field a person of high intelligence...

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Right, I'm just saying the lawyers shouldn't have any challenges at all. It doesn't take much to sabotage any hope for well-reasoned discussion. I imagine it could be as simple as eliminating one juror who shows the initiative, capability, and leadership qualities to spur the jury toward the correct decision. One in twelve seems a likely ratio to field a person of high intelligence...

Both sides get to challenge jurors so the prosecution can tailor the jury too.

As for getting more jurors who show "initiative, capability and leadership qualities", remember that the decision has to be unanimous. If only a few jurors show initiative, capability and leadership qualities, they can wind up pretty frustrated in the jury deliberation room. Take it from me. I was voted foreman on a jury. I thought it was an open/shut case. When we got to the deliberation room, I first asked for a show of hands, expecting 12 "guilty" votes. I got 6 guilty and 6 not guilty. Those of us who voted guilty just sat there stunned. For a few seconds, nobody said anything. We deliberated for a day & a half over a DUI trial where the guy had a half empty bottle of vodka on his seat, miserably failed every sobriety test and hit a car in a parking lot. It was an open & shut case but it took almost two days to convince 6 of the jurors to see it that way. You don't even want to know what had to happen to get the last two to switch their vote!

[Larry Kart]

I was on a jury in a case of some gravity -- alleged child molestation of a girl and a boy by their male stepfather, case based on the testimony of the children, now some eight years older IIRC, plus the fact that the accused looked and acted rather creepy. While the jury was basically reasonable in their deliberations, I thought there were some holes in the kids' testimony, that they also had been heavily coached (both by the prosecutors and even more so by their natural father, who was estranged from his former wife [she stood by the stepfather, to whom she was still married], had had custody of the kids for several years now, and seemed to me to be at least as creepy in his own way as the accused and a very manipulative, vindictive guy). I did get a chance to raise my (admittedly speculative) doubts, but everyone else thought I was nuts or an idiot ("How can you not believe the kids?"), so I finally voted guilty with everyone else. When the judge was told that we'd reached a verdict after maybe three or four hours, he came into the jury room grinning and said, "What took you so long?" This didn't make me feel any better, particularly because I felt that the accused's demeanor -- puffily overweight, with an unusually boyish face for a man in IIRC his mid-30s -- led many on the jury to turn against him from the first.

[JSngry]

What Would Palladin Do?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

My late father got called to jury duty in Springfield MA many years ago. The trial was assault and battery and attempted murder. The accused was a woman who stabbed another woman during a bar fight. During the trial, the defense did not deny any of the charges and instead chose to argue that the woman was sexually abused as a child so she became violent. The facts were that she assaulted someone and attempted to kill that person. The defense did not deny it.

They got to the jury deliberation room and my father thought they'd all vote guilty and get out of there. Instead, the jury was split and over the next 3 days, the guilty votes got whittled down to 1 person - my father. After getting beat on by the other 11 jurors for half a day more, he finally gave in and voted not guilty just so he could go home. He refused to serve on another jury as long as he lived after that.

[Larry Kart]

What Would Palladin Do?

You tell me. The case did have a '50s TV "problem" drama aura to it, though perhaps in fact it was I who was applying that framework, reacting to what I assumed was the other jurors' pre-judgment on the basis of the accused's demeanor.

Also, as I'm sure you know, one of the things about many court cases -- certainly this one, or so it seemed to me -- is that no one who testifies is telling the whole truth, maybe not even anything close to it. Further, this was, again IIRC, maybe the third or fourth time some aspect of this case had come before a court, and we were barred from knowing what had happened in those instances.

[Shawn]

If I ever get called for Jury Duty I'm just going to tell them that I favor the death penalty for the most minor of traffic offenses and hopefully they'll boot me out.

[Dan Gould]

Shawn,

You shouldn't have to go that far - if its a criminal case just admit a bias toward or against the cops. Say you think cops lie routinely and you won't get picked.

Kevin,

I have to wonder if given the same situation, any of us would be able to hold out and force a mistrial. I can only imagine the pressure your dad felt.

Larry,

I can't believe the judge would enter the jury room and make such a comment. I would think it constitutes judicial misconduct of some sort. No one talks to the jury unless its in court with both counsel present. Sticking his head inside and saying 'what took you so long?' Shocking, at least to me.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Larry,

I can't believe the judge would enter the jury room and make such a comment. I would think it constitutes judicial misconduct of some sort. No one talks to the jury unless its in court with both counsel present. Sticking his head inside and saying 'what took you so long?' Shocking, at least to me.

On every jury I've sat on, the judge has always come into the deliberation room to see how things were going. They see this stuff every day they work so they have an inclination as to how the jury will go. I am sure that the judge in Larry's case thought that it was pretty open/shut. He also may have been joking. The judges I met joked a bit as well. Maybe they want to alleviate tension? It gets pretty testy in some rooms.

[Larry Kart]

Shawn,

You shouldn't have to go that far - if its a criminal case just admit a bias toward or against the cops. Say you think cops lie routinely and you won't get picked.

Kevin,

I have to wonder if given the same situation, any of us would be able to hold out and force a mistrial. I can only imagine the pressure your dad felt.

Larry,

I can't believe the judge would enter the jury room and make such a comment. I would think it constitutes judicial misconduct of some sort. No one talks to the jury unless its in court with both counsel present. Sticking his head inside and saying 'what took you so long?' Shocking, at least to me.

Well, at the least this was after the judge had been told by the clerk that we had reached a verdict. Maybe it was even after it had been read in court, I'm not sure. My recollection was that it was in the jury room, and would we have gone back into the jury room after that? Without doubt what the judge said was both good humored and meant to convey that he thought it was an open and shut case. I also had the feeling that all the prior cases connected to this one had gone against the accused, which, if so, the judge knew and we did not.

[JSngry]

What Would Palladin Do?

You tell me.

Oh, that's easy - Paladin would have fought off and shamed the mob, then, on his way out of town, spotted the perp going back behind the livery stable with some kid. A confrontation would have ensued, resulting in either (probably depending on who the writer was) the law being called in or the bad guy drawing on Paladin and going down as a result, in which case Paladin would have a touching quote form the classics at the ready.

Either way, ambiguity removed, justice served, and nobility engendered. Gotta love the Paladin!