Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taking a copious amount of notes does not mean you understand anything. On a murder conviction trial there are usually many questions asked by the jury...
That's not true. Walk into any courthouse and ask any felony prosecutor (or judge) how often questions are submitted to the jury room about charges. Without exception the answer will be not often.
Civil trials have a higher question asking rate because of the complexity of calculating damages.
It's rather common really - people are tried and sucessfully convicted of murder without bodies, without direct evidence, without cause of death, quite frequently.
"Proof" is subjective. Obviously this jury had different thoughts on what reasonable doubt is. Perhaps the "CSI effect" has something to do with it (has that been discussed here yet)?
What I don't understand are posters saying "I think she killed her child, but I don't think it was proven". The comment is contradictory. If you think she killed her child - then it was proven, at least to you.
I remember someone on one of the news shows saying something about that. How people have been influenced by shows like CSI where all the evidence always connects to find out who did it and that it is not based on reality.
It is clear that the jury thought they needed absolute certain proof on a number of elements (e.g. cause of death) in order to convict. That is NOT correct, but no one on the jury asked for clarification. Comprehend?
Every element of murder must be proven byond a reasonable doubt. There are three elements of first-degree murder.
1. The person is dead.
2. The death was caused by the defendant.
3. The act by the defendant was premeditated.
Actually it's beyond "reasonable doubt", and again, what questions/clarifications did you want them to ask?
Look, information has come out that the jury believed Casey Anthony killed her daughter Caylee, but the state was unable to prove a number of key elements (e.g. cause of death, etc.). That said, if the jury did indeed believe that Casey Anthony killed Caylee then ANY AND ALL key elements did NOT have to be proved. Further, the jury could have convicted Casey on absolutely no evidence whatsoever (no body, no evidence) if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the charges against her. Therefore, it is 100% clear that the jury DID NOT UNDERSTAND that they could have convicted Casey Anthony even though the state did not prove key elements, which the jury clearly THOUGHT needed to be proved before they could convict. Thus, someone on the jury should have asked for clarification pertaining to what (if anything) is required to convict - something the jury failed to ask questions/clarification about...
That's not true. Walk into any courthouse and ask any felony prosecutor (or judge) how often questions are submitted to the jury room about charges. Without exception the answer will be not often.
Civil trials have a higher question asking rate because of the complexity of calculating damages.
Disagree... When the charge is murder one and most, or all, of the jury believes the charged is guilty, there usually are questions from the jury.
I remember someone on one of the news shows saying something about that. How people have been influenced by shows like CSI where all the evidence always connects to find out who did it and that it is not based on reality.
That is the problem with juries like this one, 'the CSI effect.' They expect DNA, blood matches, fingerprints, an unassailable collection of forensic evidence.
I don't want prosecutors to have an easy job in convicting defendants. At the same time, they shouldn't be expected to present cases the way tv does, especially when a body isn't found for 6 months.
Look, information has come out that the jury believed Casey Anthony killed her daughter Caylee, but the state was unable to prove a number of key elements (e.g. cause of death, etc.). That said, if the jury did indeed believe that Casey Anthony killed Caylee then ANY AND ALL key elements did NOT have to be proved. Further, the jury could have convicted Casey on absolutely no evidence whatsoever (no body, no evidence) if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the charges against her. Therefore, it is 100% clear that the jury DID NOT UNDERSTAND that they could have convicted Casey Anthony even though the state did not prove key elements, which the jury clearly THOUGHT needed to be proved before they could convict. Thus, someone on the jury should have asked for clarification pertaining to what (if anything) is required to convict - something the jury failed to ask questions/clarification about...
Your understanding of the legal system is laughingly incorrect.
Every element of murder must be proven byond a reasonable doubt. There are three elements of first-degree murder.
1. The person is dead.
2. The death was caused by the defendant.
3. The act by the defendant was premeditated.
I can understand how the jury couldn't convict her on first degree murder. However, I think that the circumstantial evidence coupled with the evidence in the trunk was enough to get her on manslaughter. The popular theory going around right now is that you NEED to show how the victim died and DIRECTLY link that evidence to the suspect to get a conviction. This is not true. Neither of these were established in the Scott Peterson case and he was found guilty. Scott Peterson's motive, the evidence that was found in his boat and his suspicious actions were enough for the jury to conclude that he was responsible. In the same sense I think that Casey's motive was adequately shown, there was evidence of human decomposition in her trunk, and her suspicious actions after the dissapearance/death of her child were enough for anyone to conclude that she was involved in the unlawful death of her child.
However, I still can understand, based on the lack of hard evidence, how the jury could not convict on manslaughter, even though I would have. What is the real tragedy however is that it is not a more severe crime to not report your child dead or missing and to lie to law enforcement during a missing person investigation. These should all be serious felony charges and she should have been given a very long prison sentence. People who do such things have no place in our society and are a danger to others and an obstruction to our justice system. Either way you look at it, the justice system didn't work.
Your understanding of the legal system is laughingly incorrect.
It is absolutely correct!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
