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.
I base my opinion on the fact that juries can acquit people for whatever they want. If you don't believe me just google 'jury nullification'. Now that is not likely what happened in this case, but the jury has no duty to ask to review testimony or ask questions of the judge after the conclusion of the trial phase, all they really have to do is reach a verdict which they did.
We all know a jury can acquit for whatever reason they want.
In this case, juror 3 wanted to know Exactly when and where the chloroform and duct tape were used: was it in the back seat of the car, the trunk, a public place. Ridiculous.
She couldn't exclude the "possibility" that it was an accident. Does the state now have to exclude the 'possibility' of an alternative for which there is absolutely No Evidence ?
She said if they charged Casey with other other than 1st degree murder they "probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely." What !?!?!? Did she already forget the many other charges ?
She wanted the state to 'connect the dots.' She has every right to feel that way; I believe a juror's role is to connect the dots.
Your sole points seem to be that juries can do whatever they want and the public should shut up. What, if anything, am I missing ?
We all know a jury can acquit for whatever reason they want.
In this case, juror 3 wanted to know Exactly when and where the chloroform and duct tape were used: was it in the back seat of the car, the trunk, a public place. Ridiculous.
She couldn't exclude the "possibility" that it was an accident. Does the state now have to exclude the 'possibility' of an alternative for which there is absolutely No Evidence ?
She said if they charged Casey with other other than 1st degree murder they "probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely." What !?!?!? Did she already forget the many other charges ?
She wanted the state to 'connect the dots.' She has every right to feel that way; I believe a juror's role is to connect the dots.
Your sole points seem to be that juries can do whatever they want and the public should shut up. What, if anything, am I missing ?
You nailed it! The role of the prosecutor's is to present know facts of the case. The role of the jury is to "connect the dots" of those facts. If a jury expects that to be totally done for them, not only are they lazy but the would not be necessary in the first place.
It's completely up to the state to prove their case.
The defense doesn't have to prove anything.
WHat you 'feel' is in direct contradiction to how it actually works, though.
It should be clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that Casey Anthony was directly responsible, fully involved and absolutely knowledgable about the death and disposal of her baby daughter...
The verdict should have been: Guilty Murder One - Life In Prison Without Parole
It's completely up to the state to prove their case.
The defense doesn't have to prove anything.
WHat you 'feel' is in direct contradiction to how it actually works, though.
I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything. Since when does the state have to exclude every 'possible' alternative. That's not how it's supposed to work.
I suppose Baez could have said Caylee drowned in the bathtub, the swamp, or played with a plastic bag and suffocated, or simply wandered away, and you'd want the state to disprove those 'possibilities.'
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. To return a not guilty verdict because an alternative is 'possible' or 'speculative' turns the system upside down.
I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything. Since when does the state have to exclude every 'possible' alternative. That's not how it's supposed to work.
It does when that's the alternative that the defense is pretty much hanging on.
Judging by the fact that there could be no discernible cause of death, it's a very real possiblility.
The bottom line is, the prosecution HAS to prove their case, or they don't win.
Just heard today, one woman on the jury had to quit her job, b/c she had her life threatened....
Now, I agree, the jury was definately wrong, they're all looking for a evidence that is cut and dry dead on...however, to threaten them, is wrong...wrong, wrong..
A sheriff in Florida says Casey Anthony's mother could face perjury charges for her testimony during her daughter's murder trial.
Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said Tuesday there have been discussions with prosecutors about filing perjury charges against Cindy Anthony and a decision could come soon.
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.
Baez could have dreamed that mess up.
Breaking news!
