Casey Anthony Not Guilty Verdict

[Dan Gould]

Maybe its just as well that they didn't convict her - it sounds like it wouldn't have stood on appeal.

Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word chloroform were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.

The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.

And he informed the prosecution of his correced data but they stuck with the info they originally received. More here.

Sounds like that could have been reversible error, if she had been convicted.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Dan Gould

[sonnymax]

Sounds like that could have been reversible error, if she had been convicted.

You've made clear your feelings about this case and the verdict. What's not clear is your opinion about due process. Too often, prosecutors withhold material and exculpatory evidence from the defense, knowing that punishment for such judicial misconduct is spotty, at best. Suggesting that it "could" have been a "reversible error" in the event of a conviction in a capital punishment case is a glib comment, worthy of Nancy Grace.

[Dan Gould]

First of all, Nancy Grace wouldn't have said it because she is a lawyer and "reversible error" is a mistake by the judge. As a layman, I plucked a legal phrase out of my memory bank of Law & Order plots.

This is prosecutorial misconduct of an egregious sort and frankly leads me to be more willing to question the assumption of guilt many people had.

Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated before.

[sonnymax]

First of all, Nancy Grace wouldn't have said it because she is a lawyer and "reversible error" is a mistake by the judge. As a layman, I plucked a legal phrase out of my memory bank of Law & Order plots.

This is prosecutorial misconduct of an egregious sort and frankly leads me to be more willing to question the assumption of guilt many people had.

Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated before.

Damn, I hate it when you're reasonable. Now I gotta go and find somebody else's ass to bite!

[JSngry]

Bite the ass of all the sloppy-ass prosecutors and police departments across the country who make it too damn easy to get cases legitimately dismissed because of their triflin' adherence to basic, standard, established, and sound procedures. If you're too dumb and/or arrogant to learn the rules and respect/follow them, get the hell outta Dodge, dig?

People everywhere want to bitch about "lenient" courts and all that, but hell, if the "people's" side did their job tightened up like they ought to, there's be a helluva lot fewer "technicalities" to throw open for discussion.

[ejp626]

First of all, Nancy Grace wouldn't have said it because she is a lawyer and "reversible error" is a mistake by the judge. As a layman, I plucked a legal phrase out of my memory bank of Law & Order plots.

This is prosecutorial misconduct of an egregious sort and frankly leads me to be more willing to question the assumption of guilt many people had.

Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated before.

Damn, I hate it when you're reasonable. Now I gotta go and find somebody else's ass to bite!

Still think it is likely that she is guilty, but not only did the prosecution not prove its case, there was clear misconduct, so indeed, the verdict is the correct one.

For my part, I am having to (painfully) eat a bit of crow over the DSK case where the witness has been less than forthright about the whole situation. DSK is still a scumbag, based on his behavior prior to the hotel incident, but he indeed may not be guilty at all here -- and for sure it is unlikely he would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Aggie87]

Bite the ass of all the sloppy-ass prosecutors and police departments across the country who make it too damn easy to get cases legitimately dismissed because of their triflin' adherence to basic, standard, established, and sound procedures. If you're too dumb and/or arrogant to learn the rules and respect/follow them, get the hell outta Dodge, dig?

People everywhere want to bitch about "lenient" courts and all that, but hell, if the "people's" side did their job tightened up like they ought to, there's be a helluva lot fewer "technicalities" to throw open for discussion.

The people's side gets paid a whole lot less than the defense attorneys. I think the prosecutors do about as well as they're capable of, unfortunately.

[RDK]

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.

I was recently a juror on a very similar case and had much the same experience (save the judge part). But my jury took it very seriously even though we all felt the hard evidence was pretty weak - essentially a he said/he said thing. Several of us had some doubt, but since the defense didn't put on any case about all we had to go on was the victim's testimony. And finding his story credible we had little choice but to convict.

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.

Yeah, good luck with that strategy. Judges don't like it when prospective jurors try to pull that. Believe me, they've heard it all!

[Dan Gould]

I am sure that is true, Ray, but I'm sure Shawn is smart enough to tailor his Voir Dire answers to get himself dismissed. There may be clues given by one attorney or the other regarding what kind of mind-set they want, or you can always fall back on the "I don't trust cops to tell the truth" or "I naturally assume cops tell the truth" testimony to get yourself challenged by one side or the other.

Or, there's always the "I don't think I should judge other people" comment.

[ejp626]

I am sure that is true, Ray, but I'm sure Shawn is smart enough to tailor his Voir Dire answers to get himself dismissed. There may be clues given by one attorney or the other regarding what kind of mind-set they want, or you can always fall back on the "I don't trust cops to tell the truth" or "I naturally assume cops tell the truth" testimony to get yourself challenged by one side or the other.

Or, there's always the "I don't think I should judge other people" comment.

There is an urban legend (among sociologists) that if you say (truthfully) that you have a Ph.D. in sociology you will always be dismissed by the prosecution because you will have such a jaundiced view of the criminal justice system. Never had to try it out so far.

[JSngry]

Bite the ass of all the sloppy-ass prosecutors and police departments across the country who make it too damn easy to get cases legitimately dismissed because of their triflin' adherence to basic, standard, established, and sound procedures. If you're too dumb and/or arrogant to learn the rules and respect/follow them, get the hell outta Dodge, dig?

People everywhere want to bitch about "lenient" courts and all that, but hell, if the "people's" side did their job tightened up like they ought to, there's be a helluva lot fewer "technicalities" to throw open for discussion.

The people's side gets paid a whole lot less than the defense attorneys. I think the prosecutors do about as well as they're capable of, unfortunately.

No.

Intentionally flaunting or otherwise disregarding the rules, be it in training or in execution, is never doing as well as anybody is capable of unless they have a fundamental learning or mental disorder.

You either care enough to do your job right or you don't.

[Dan Gould]

And let's not forget the prosecution is supposed to be dedicated to revealing the truth of the matter and seeing that justice is done (for example, the defense isn't obligated to turn over incriminating evidence but the prosecution has to turn over exculpatory evidence) and presenting the evidence of internet searching/website visits in the way that they did is an extreme contradiction of their obligation.

[Aggie87]

Bite the ass of all the sloppy-ass prosecutors and police departments across the country who make it too damn easy to get cases legitimately dismissed because of their triflin' adherence to basic, standard, established, and sound procedures. If you're too dumb and/or arrogant to learn the rules and respect/follow them, get the hell outta Dodge, dig?

People everywhere want to bitch about "lenient" courts and all that, but hell, if the "people's" side did their job tightened up like they ought to, there's be a helluva lot fewer "technicalities" to throw open for discussion.

The people's side gets paid a whole lot less than the defense attorneys. I think the prosecutors do about as well as they're capable of, unfortunately.

No.

Intentionally flaunting or otherwise disregarding the rules, be it in training or in execution, is never doing as well as anybody is capable of unless they have a fundamental learning or mental disorder.

You either care enough to do your job right or you don't.

If all lawyers were created equal I might agree with that.

[JSngry]

An enforcement & prosecutorial structure that doesn't care enough to present as airtight of a case as they can is one that is either arrogant, corrupt, inept, or some sick combination thereof.

Either way, if such a structure is allowed to become institutionalized (and look around, it very often has), innocent people get convicted, guilty people go free, justice becomes a mockery of itself, respect for it - and the laws it engages - is lost, and, really, why not? Clown good guys vs clown bad guys is still clown v. clown. Clown in, clown out.

At some point, responsibility must be taken instead of hurling blame and making excuses.

[JSngry]

Bite the ass of all the sloppy-ass prosecutors and police departments across the country who make it too damn easy to get cases legitimately dismissed because of their triflin' adherence to basic, standard, established, and sound procedures. If you're too dumb and/or arrogant to learn the rules and respect/follow them, get the hell outta Dodge, dig?

People everywhere want to bitch about "lenient" courts and all that, but hell, if the "people's" side did their job tightened up like they ought to, there's be a helluva lot fewer "technicalities" to throw open for discussion.

The people's side gets paid a whole lot less than the defense attorneys. I think the prosecutors do about as well as they're capable of, unfortunately.

No.

Intentionally flaunting or otherwise disregarding the rules, be it in training or in execution, is never doing as well as anybody is capable of unless they have a fundamental learning or mental disorder.

You either care enough to do your job right or you don't.

If all lawyers were created equal I might agree with that.

No.

Part of caring enough to do your job right is to prepare for a lawyer who is doing their job by doing your job better than they do theirs.

Fucking around with the truth just because you suspect/know that your adversary is doing the same is simply trying to combat bad with worse.

Combating bad with worse is the national disease these days, it seems. And it works. But only up to a point. Sooner or later, the day of reckoning comes.

[Aggie87]

Still don't agree with you. Some lawyers are simply better than others. The better ones go where there's bigger money to be had. Being a County prosecutor or something similar doesn't pay like a defense attorney does.

edit - this doesn't explain Jose Baez though. IMO he was simply in above his head, and got lucky. I think the prosecution in this particular case did about 95% of the job they should have done, and arguably gave enough evidence for "beyond a reasonable doubt". The jurors didn't think so though. I'm cool with that.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Aggie87

[JSngry]

Some lawyers are simply better than others. The better ones go where there's bigger money to be had. Being a County prosecutor or something similar doesn't pay like a defense attorney does.

No!

Putting aside the implied argument that a county prosecutor's office should never be expected to be able to competently compete with "big money" lawyer "just because", it's one thing to be outplayed by a superior opponent (and enough of those should serve as learning experiences...), quite another to just be some weaselly bullshitters hiding behind the law's budget and using it as an excuse to perpetrate and perpetuate their piss-poor perceptions of the people they're supposed to be serving.

The inertia of trifleness is mathematically guaranteed to succeed: the path of least resistance + the laws of gravity = s(o)(a)me typical sadass bullshit guaranteed to remain, only moreso.

But that's no excuse for excusing it.

No!

[Aggie87]

Some lawyers are simply better than others. The better ones go where there's bigger money to be had. Being a County prosecutor or something similar doesn't pay like a defense attorney does.

No!

Putting aside the implied argument that a county prosecutor's office should never be expected to be able to competently compete with "big money" lawyer "just because", it's one thing to be outplayed by a superior opponent (and enough of those should serve as learning experiences...), quite another to just be some weaselly bullshitters hiding behind the law's budget and using it as an excuse to perpetrate and perpetuate their piss-poor perceptions of the people they're supposed to be serving.

The inertia of trifleness is mathematically guaranteed to succeed: the path of least resistance + the laws of gravity = s(o)(a)me typical sadass bullshit guaranteed to remain, only moreso.

But that's no excuse for excusing it.

No!

I never made that implication.

Of course the county prosecutor's job is to do the best they can, but they have a much tougher job than the defense attorney's, who only have to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove anything one way or the other.

Big money attracts better caliber of lawyers, so I think in many cases things are skewed in the defense's favor from the git-go. Especially since their job isn't as tough, generally.

I think alot of lawyers start with county/district attorney's offices, to establish their courtroom experience, then move to the other side of the fence to generate their nest egg.

[JSngry]

Some lawyers are simply better than others. The better ones go where there's bigger money to be had. Being a County prosecutor or something similar doesn't pay like a defense attorney does.

No!

Putting aside the implied argument that a county prosecutor's office should never be expected to be able to competently compete with "big money" lawyer "just because", it's one thing to be outplayed by a superior opponent (and enough of those should serve as learning experiences...), quite another to just be some weaselly bullshitters hiding behind the law's budget and using it as an excuse to perpetrate and perpetuate their piss-poor perceptions of the people they're supposed to be serving.

The inertia of trifleness is mathematically guaranteed to succeed: the path of least resistance + the laws of gravity = s(o)(a)me typical sadass bullshit guaranteed to remain, only moreso.

But that's no excuse for excusing it.

No!

I never made that implication.

Of course the county prosecutor's job is to do the best they can, but they have a much tougher job than the defense attorney's, who only have to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove anything one way or the other.

Big money attracts better caliber of lawyers, so I think in many cases things are skewed in the defense's favor from the git-go. Especially since their job isn't as tough, generally.

I think a lot of lawyers start with county/district attorney's offices, to establish their courtroom experience, then move to the other side of the fence to generate their nest egg.

So what is the implication here? That money may not buy justice, but it greatly skews the odds in favor of a favorable outcome? No argument there, same old same old, but - how much of that is because so/too prosecutors' offices are predicated on the principal of looking for cheap and easy convictions instead of carefully accumulating and presenting enough facts to convict? Or going for an easy conviction instead of an honest one?

Eliminating institutional cultures of prejudice, cynicism, and/or sloth would go a long way towards eliminating whatever performance disparities might exist because of salary disparities.

Or are we all going to pretend that such cultures do not exist, while the parade of wrongly-convicted and wrongly-exonerated continues on, leaving giant heaps of judicial dung on our streets for us "innocents" to try to walk around? That's too much to settle for, especially since the street sweepers are on strike!

Instead of a bunch of bug-eyed maniacs screaming BABY KILLER at any camera that will look at them, how about screaming DUMB FUCKS at every prosecutor's office who just half-asses it and then botches a case as a result?

Money can't buy character, but it sure as hell can stifle it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by JSngry

[Jazzmoose]

There is an urban legend (among sociologists) that if you say (truthfully) that you have a Ph.D. in sociology you will always be dismissed by the prosecution because you will have such a jaundiced view of the criminal justice system. Never had to try it out so far.

I would imagine that someone with a Ph. D. in sociology would be dismissed by almost anyone...