We were 25 minutes from DIA aboard a Frontier Airlines jet when CNN announced the jury had reached a verdict and were at baggage claim when it was read in open court. I watched and listened on my iPhone in disbelief as Jim searched for our bags. (Priority Handling my ass!)
Like any newshound, I followed this trial via newspapers and CNN's daily recap and often wondered how defense attorney Jose Baez made it through high school, much less law school.
I served on a jury once and at the end of the day, we could not find the defendant guilty (an assault that resulted in the victim losing a testicle) for the simple reason that the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - "reasonable" being the key word here.
The victim had crashed a party at the defendant's residence, was drunk and belligerent, asked to leave and refused to do so. A scuffle ensued, ending with a swift kick to the groin of the victim. I'll spare you the gory details.
There were plenty of witnesses, the defendant admitted to the kick in his effort to get the victim off his property and his back, but said he never intended for the victim (who was 8" taller and outweighed the defendant by 65 pounds) to ultimately lose his testicle. The prosecution failed to prove he intended to injure the man so seriously and we could not, in all good conscience, convict this guy.
In our country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that a crime occurred and someone is responsible for it. It's a very high, if not impossible, standard to meet which is why it's referred to as a "burden".
The Casey Anthony case was based largely on circumstantial evidence which is always going to generate some degree of doubt and no jury should ever take a capital murder case lightly.
Scott Peterson's conviction in the murder of his pregnant wife Lacey was also based largely on circumstantial evidence proving that sometimes, even circumstantial evidence is compelling enough for a conviction. But that simply wasn't the case in the Anthony trial.
In recent years, DNA evidence has freed many sitting on death row who were wrongly convicted and we also know there are plenty of innocent people still sitting in jails.
The Casey Anthony case was based largely on circumstantial evidence which is always going to generate some degree of doubt and no jury should ever take a capital murder case lightly.
Scott Peterson's conviction in the murder of his pregnant wife Lacey was also based largely on circumstantial evidence proving that sometimes, even circumstantial evidence is compelling enough for a conviction. But that simply wasn't the case in the Anthony trial.
In recent years, DNA evidence has freed many sitting on death row who were wrongly convicted and we also know there are plenty of innocent people still sitting in jails.
It happens.
New York lawyer Susan Moss said when referring to the Casey Anthony trial, "Apparently, they found the only 12 people who still think the world is flat". But we can't blame the jury.
Is she guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the murder of her daughter Caylee?
After three years of investigations, legal maneuvering, lab tests, sworn statements, and a lengthy trial, the jury agreed the prosecution did not prove that she was.
Due to the decomposition of her little body, authorities could not even determine the cause of death.
But is Casey Anthony innocent?
Of course not! And the jury never said she was but it's clear they had doubts about much of what the prosecution presented as evidence.
As for me? The fact that Caylee was missing for 31 days before Casey said a word is evidence enough, and I believe she's guilty as sin, but what I think or believe doesn't matter.
More than likely, Casey Anthony will walk out of jail tomorrow a free woman after being sentenced to time served for lying to the cops. She'll disappear for a while, get a makeover, a new wardrobe and reappear on a book tour in the not too distant future because she's no doubt going to go after the money and fame.
But is Casey Anthony innocent?
Of course not! And the jury never said she was but it's clear they had doubts about much of what the prosecution presented as evidence.
As for me? The fact that Caylee was missing for 31 days before Casey said a word is evidence enough, and I believe she's guilty as sin, but what I think or believe doesn't matter.
We won't ever know the truth because no matter what she says, no one could or should believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
It's a sad commentary indeed.
It's a sad commentary indeed.
