[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Lessons Learned from Casey Anthony Trial Lessons Learned from Casey Anthony Trial Posted by: Chief Billy Grogan Friday, July 08, 2011 Almost everyone has been glued to the television, reading their newspaper or checking online news for the last several weeks following the trial of Casey Anthony. This case has grabbed the interest of the entire country. Even those not interested in this case could hardly avoid the information, opinions, theories and analysis being broadcasted 24/7. In the end, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder and not guilty of the other more serious charges and was only convicted of lying to investigators. A collective gasp escaped from the public. Most were shocked by the verdict including, it appeared, Casey Anthony herself. The airwaves lit up with more questions than answers. How could this have happened? Who is to blame? There are several important lessons that can be learned from this case. These lessons may help us answer some lingering questions about this case, while at the same time, remind us of some important considerations for future high-profile cases. Lesson #1 – You Can’t Discount the CSI Effect In today’s world where television crime shows solve complex cases within one hour and use advanced forensic analysis techniques, jurors have come to expect a substantial amount of forensic evidence, even when little or none exists. In these complex cases, jurors tend to have more confidence in forensic evidence and less confidence in circumstantial evidence. It just so happened in the Casey Anthony case, the circumstantial case was stronger than the forensic case. More info about CSI Effect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect Lesson #2 – Jurors Want to Know the Cause of Death Based on some comments that have been released, the Jurors could not reconcile the fact that the prosecution could not prove the cause of death. Unfortunately, this is not unusual in cases where the victim’s body was not discovered for an extended period of time and has been exposed to the elements prior to the discovery of the body. In some cases with severe trauma, the cause of death can still be identified even if the body was not discovered until months later. However, with the circumstances of this case, this was not possible. Lesson #3 – The Jury Only Sees the Case as Presented The Jury sat through the entire trial, listened to every witness and made a judgment about the credibility of each witness. They were able to observe the demeanor of witnesses as they testified and interacted with the attorneys on both sides. However, they were not allowed to listen to the discussions amongst the lawyers with the Judge which happened out of their presence, but in the presence of the viewing public. In addition, they were not allowed to listen to those on television each day that spent hours analyzing the day’s testimony and speculating about how it fit into the big picture of the case. Lesson #4 – Police & Prosecutors Can Only Present Evidence That is Available The circumstances’ surrounding any murder is unique and different. No two murders are the same. The evidence left at the crime scene may be plentiful or non-existent. There may or may not be witnesses. The evidence may have been destroyed on purpose or by accident because of the circumstances of the case. An example would be a body left in water or set on fire or not discovered for a long period of time. Just because someone touches something doesn’t mean they will leave a fingerprint or that there will be DNA evidence. In this case, the police department and the prosecutor’s office had little direct evidence to present. They had no cause of death, no confession, no eye witness and little motive. Instead, their case was built upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances of the case dictated the type of evidence they had to present. They could only show the hand they were dealt. Lesson #5 – Prosecutors Should be Careful With the Charge Since this was a death penalty case, the Jurors expected to have a substantial amount of evidence against Casey Anthony to convict her. It just wasn’t there. In a non-death penalty murder case or manslaughter case, the prosecution has fewer hoops to jump through and Jurors are less demanding. In this case, the prosecution spent a lot of time trying to prove the death penalty murder case and little time on the other charges. In the end, the prosecution would have had a much stronger case without the death penalty charge. Lesson #6 – Jury Verdicts Should be Based on Fact Instead of Emotion A beautiful, small child is dead. Her mother is accused of killing her. From the beginning, this case evoked extreme emotional reactions from the public and strong feelings of disgust with Casey Anthony. In spite of these emotions, the Jury is responsible for making a decision based only on the evidence presented. In this case, as has been reported by one of the jurors, they did not believe the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Who knows what verdict any of us would have rendered if we had been in their position? We have one of the best, if not the best, criminal justice systems of anyone. But it is far from perfect. Mistakes do happen. A case such as this is extremely difficult, even in the best of circumstances. It is especially difficult when the circumstances of the case leave you with little real evidence. Please keep this in mind for all cases. Do I believe Casey Anthony is guilty of killing her daughter?…………yes.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||