Casey Anthony Trail

[Pappy13]

If a trial by jury is a fair system, then why did it produce an unfair result?

Who says it's unfair? I didn't really watch the trial, but from what I've heard there wasn't a whole lot of evidence to go on. Mostly circumstantial that didn't prove anything conclusively other than maybe that she lied to police.

[Pappy13]

That said, emotion aside, I think there was a general lack of common sense.  Which all jurors were asked to bring with them into deliberation.  You don't not report a missing child for 31 minutes let alone 31 days...

Agreed, but it doesn't prove murder. Neglect maybe.

and you don't find duct take on a body that died by "accident."  Let alone duct tape that isn't produced anymore and was found in the Anthony home. 

Agreed again, but it doesn't prove who put the duct tape on her.  Could have been the mother, could have been someone else. I think this was the major problem here, proving that it was the mother that committed the crime if one was indeed committed.

[BoSoxGrl]

There were 300ish pieces of evidence.
Of those 300 bits of evidence, yes, there were several that more than 1 person had access to.
There was, however, only 1 person who had access to every single piece...and we just let her get away with it.

[BoSoxGrl]

Side Note:  Who calls their family the day they get arrested from jail not to ask if there are new developments in finding her daughter but for her BF's phone number?
Weird.

[Phishfan]

I wonder if the prosecutors are going to go after Cindy for perjury? Typically I don't think they charge people with it a lot because it is difficult to prove in many cases, but they have some good evidence against Cindy.

[fyo]

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (William Blackstone)

It's one of the central pillars of the judicial system and defending it from the constant onslaught of single-case bullshit is critical.

[StL FinFan]

Was she charged with desecrating a corpse or something similar for wrapping duct tape around the head and wrapping the body in garbage bags and dumping it in the woods?  Isn't that all illegal somehow?

[Phishfan]

No she wasn't charged for that and I don't think they would have had any evidence to prove that either.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Was she charged with desecrating a corpse or something similar for wrapping duct tape around the head and wrapping the body in garbage bags and dumping it in the woods?  Isn't that all illegal somehow?

Strategically a DA will often not charge the defendant with every possible and conceivable crime.   

One big reason for this is juries often like to compromise.  Charge the defendant with 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder and often a jury with go with 2nd degree as a compromise between not guilty and 1st degree.  Likewise if the defendant is charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter a jury will often go for the compromise of manslaughter.  Often a DA won't make the manslaughter charge b/c the DA want to force the jury to either let the defendant walk or convict of murder and is worried that an option of manslaughter would be too appeal to the jury.   Also too many charges can confuse and over complicate the trial.  Or make it look the the DA is fishing. 

Then sometimes other things are added in not because the DA want a conviction on that count but because it lets additional evidence in.  For example the lying to the police charge, that allowed evidence that put the defendant in a bad light into the evidence that would not otherwise be admissible on just the murder charge.

Because of the 5th amendment she can not be tried for that now.   

[Phishfan]

Strategically a DA will often not charge the defendant with every possible and conceivable crime.   

One big reason for this is juries often like to compromise.  Charge the defendant with 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder and often a jury with go with 2nd degree as a compromise between not guilty and 1st degree.  Likewise if the defendant is charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter a jury will often go for the compromise of manslaughter.  Often a DA won't make the manslaughter charge b/c the DA want to force the jury to either let the defendant walk or convict of murder and is worried that an option of manslaughter would be too appeal to the jury.   Also too many charges can confuse and over complicate the trial.  Or make it look the the DA is fishing. 

Then sometimes other things are added in not because the DA want a conviction on that count but because it lets additional evidence in.  For example the lying to the police charge, that allowed evidence that put the defendant in a bad light into the evidence that would not otherwise be admissible on just the murder charge.

Because of the 5th amendment she can not be tried for that now.   

Actually her first degree murder charge was inclusive of charges for second degree murder, third degree murder, & manslaughter.

I don't think the 5th Amendment has any role in now charging her with improper disposal of a body. That is a completely different offense so she is indeed not being tried for the same crime twice. They aren't going to go that route though.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't think the 5th Amendment has any role in now charging her with improper disposal of a body.

Completely false.  I forget the exact language, but I think it went something along the lines of "arise from the same activities or events"

E.g. It would have been impossible to try Timothy McVeigh for the murder of one of the people in the Alfred P. Murrah Building have him be found not guilty (or even guilty)  and then try him for a second person and keep repeating for each of the 76 victims. 

If a person robbed two liquor stores on different days then that could be one trial covering both or two separate trials one for each.   

[masterfins]

I think the verdict was proper given the evidence presented.  The DA did a poor job prosecuting this case.  Never should have been a death penalty when there was not a cause of death provided.  Prosecution tried to stretch the truth to get a 1st Degree conviction and it backfired on them.  One witness testified she searched for "chloroform" 84 times, then it was shown she only searched once, and that was directly after she viewed a facebook page where the term was used.  George Anthony was not fully truthful, and that put doubts into the minds of the jurors whether he could be involved.  The heart sticker on the duct tape was made up.  If the DA had kept this simple and went for manslaughter she would have been found guilty.

[Phishfan]

^^^Manslaughter was part of the charges. As I stated earlier, the jury was instructed that the first degree murder charge also carried with it the possibilities of second & third degree murder as well as manslaughter.

[Phishfan]

Completely false.  I forget the exact language, but I think it went something along the lines of "arise from the same activities or events"

E.g. It would have been impossible to try Timothy McVeigh for the murder of one of the people in the Alfred P. Murrah Building have him be found not guilty (or even guilty)  and then try him for a second person and keep repeating for each of the 76 victims. 

If a person robbed two liquor stores on different days then that could be one trial covering both or two separate trials one for each.   

I don't think the McVeigh example really fits. I'm not trained in this area so this is from my own study and interpretation. He could have been tried differently for each victim whether found guilty or not guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense and a conspiracy to commit the offense are not the same for double jeopardy. Also, I believe that multiple incidences of a single act can be tried separately as long as there is different material evidence. To explain further, if he had been acquitted and they only tried him for one person's death and nothing else, new evidence would allow them to try him for a separate death. This would not be allowed to include any charges or evidence from those charges he had already been acquitted for (in this example let's say he was simply charged with one death and not account for any other possible charges he faced such as terrorism, etc.)

An example I would use of this is let's say McVeigh had killed a security guard by gunshot before he planted the bomb. It was all part of the same act, but had he been acquitted of the bombing, separate evidence could convict him of the security guard killing.

[masterfins]

^^^Manslaughter was part of the charges. As I stated earlier, the jury was instructed that the first degree murder charge also carried with it the possibilities of second & third degree murder as well as manslaughter.

I realize that manslaughter was included, my point was that the prosecution pushed this as death penalty case from the begining, and I think that was a mistake.  Once the jury passed on the 1st & 2nd degree charges it made it easier to also find not guilty on the manslaughter charge because the DA didn't come close to proving 1st degree.  The whole focus was on the death penalty.