PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

orbitz
07-05-2011, 09:58 PM
Are you kidding? She'll get a huge advance and the book will fly off the shelves. People love stuff like this. I suspect a publisher has already contacted her with a ghost writer.

I don't know. Didn't O.J. have a book called something like "If I Did It...", and the majority of the public had enough good taste not to touch it? Caylee is not a celebrity before the trial, and her demeanor during the trial has not endear her to the public. Saying the she'll make millions from this trial is way overselling her to the public.

---
Nancy Grace is a bully. Never liked her.

Jenna
07-05-2011, 09:59 PM
Well, here's my $0.02..

The defense did NOT have to prove that Ms. Anthony was innocent of killing her daughter, they only had to prove that there was reasonable DOUBT that she didn't. In murder trials such as this, the jury better be damned sure the person they are convicting is guilty and the story that Jeff Ashton presented before the court had multiple holes, hence, the reasonable doubt. That's why she was acquitted.

cruisin
07-05-2011, 10:01 PM
Shocking. What do you all think was going through the jurors' minds? And does anyone have the legal definition of reasonable doubt?

The fact that the verdict was reached relatively quickly points to defense's case being convincing to the jury. I didn't find it convincing.

I don't think the defense's case was that convincing. I think it was the prosecution's case that was lacking any sort of proof. When my son got home this afternoon, I asked him if he'd heard (he's interning with a federal district judge this summer). He said yes. I mentioned how disappointed I was with the acquittal, and he said that's what happens when there is a lack of solid evidence. Sadly, he's right, the prosecution failed to convince.


^ the duct tape was traced back to the Anthony house. Surely that is abuse if not murder?

That is fine, but they cannot prove it was used to kill her. And how do they conclusively prove the tape was from that specific roll of tape? Same brand, yes. But after so much time, what could possibly be there to prove it had been in the Anthony home?


Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if Casey admitted to killing Caylee, there might be a possibility for a second trial under a different jurisdiction -- i.e. a Federal Court (trials for the Rodney King beatings by police, for example).

They couldn't try her for the same charges. They could, however, possibly try her for the crime in some altered way. Maybe they could try her for manslaughter, but not murder. Or for tampering with a crime scene, if she admitted to moving the body?

snoopy
07-05-2011, 10:03 PM
Jenna, if you didn't follow the case how do you know there were multiple holes?

I think the prosecution proved - not premeditated murder - but the lesser offense of unintential homicide/manslaughter.

Jenna
07-05-2011, 10:04 PM
Jenna, if you didn't follow the case how do you know there were multiple holes?

I think the prosecution proved - not premeditated murder - but the lesser offense of unintential homicide.

I did follow the case. I said I didn't follow it "as closely as many of you."

Tinami Amori
07-05-2011, 10:05 PM
And what is "moral certainty"?
In law, just an alternative phrase to "beyond reasonable doubt", "certain, but not all 100%" - moralis certitude moral certitude.

In Russian legal terms: достаточная моральная уверенность, моральная достоверность.

skatingfan5
07-05-2011, 10:06 PM
They couldn't try her for the same charges. They could, however, possibly try her for the crime in some altered way. Maybe they could try her for manslaughter, but not murder. Or for tampering with a crime scene, if she admitted to moving the body?Correct. In the case of the Rodney King beatings, the police were acquitted of assault charges, but some were later convicted (in Federal Court) of violating King's civil rights.

Cheylana
07-05-2011, 10:06 PM
They couldn't try her for the same charges. They could, however, possibly try her for the crime in some altered way. Maybe they could try her for manslaughter, but not murder. Or for tampering with a crime scene, if she admitted to moving the body?
Nope, that would be tossed out of court straightaway as unconstitutional (double jeopardy). The Florida prosecutors had their bite at the apple. If the prosecutors wanted to bring Florida manslaughter charges they needed to bring them the first time around; they can't deliberately leave out charges in hopes of bringing them later in case things don't work out the first time.

The Rodney King case fell within a narrow exception to the double jeopardy rule, because it involved violations of federal law, in that particular case violation of King's civil rights. The California state court had its bite at the apple, but the federal court was allowed to bring its own separate charges. Unless Casey's crime crossed state lines or something I don't see how a federal court would have jurisdiction over this case.

cruisin
07-05-2011, 10:07 PM
Jenna, if you didn't follow the case how do you know there were multiple holes?

I think the prosecution proved - not premeditated murder - but the lesser offense of unintential homicide/manslaughter.

Snoopy, for me they proved it. But, if I were on the jury, I don't know if I would fee the same. I am having an emotional reaction to the unfathomable vileness of, if not deliberately killing or accidentally killing your own child, but the callousness of doing nothing for a month. As much as I strongly believe Casey did kill the child, I don't think the prosecution proved anything other than the fact that Casey is a horrible mother and person.

Anita18
07-05-2011, 10:10 PM
Snoopy, for me they proved it. But, if I were on the jury, I don't know if I would fee the same. I am having an emotional reaction to the unfathomable vileness of, if not deliberately killing or accidentally killing your own child, but the callousness of doing nothing for a month. As much as I strongly believe Casey did kill the child, I don't think the prosecution proved anything other than the fact that Casey is a horrible mother and person.
My coworker says that in France, she'd have been convicted if the jurors felt that she did it. Their system is not as stringent on evidence as ours.

Frankly I'd rather have our system. It's more preferable to have a guilty person walk free than an innocent person sent to jail or death row, IMO.

skatingfan5
07-05-2011, 10:11 PM
Nope, that would be tossed out of court straightaway as unconstitutional (double jeopardy). The prosecutors had their bite at the apple. If they wanted to bring manslaughter charges they needed to bring them the first time around; they can't deliberately leave out charges in hopes of bringing them later in case things don't work out the first time.I know that the state can't retry her on related charges, but are you saying that there wouldn't be the possibility (albeit remote) of a Federal trial -- given the stated hypothetical that Casey would admit to causing Caylee's death? I guess there must be unallowables to the separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy.

cruisin
07-05-2011, 10:11 PM
Nope, that would be tossed out of court straightaway as unconstitutional (double jeopardy). The prosecutors had their bite at the apple. If they wanted to bring manslaughter charges they needed to bring them the first time around; they can't deliberately leave out charges in hopes of bringing them later in case things don't work out the first time.

That was me, not IceAlisa (sometimes these quotes just get crazy).

I didn't think the manslaughter/vs/murder would work. But, I'm pretty sure that they could re-try her for some other aspect that would not create double jeopardy.

Cheylana
07-05-2011, 10:17 PM
Sorry, I edited my post a couple of times to fix the quotes and to give my take on the separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy rule.

For the feds to bring charges they would have to prove federal jurisdiction, i.e., the Casey broke a federal crime, or she crossed state lines. As far as I know she hasn't done either. The feds can't charge Casey with violating Caylee's civil rights because she is not a government official, so they couldn't do what the feds did in the Rodney King case. There might be some federal crime Casey committed, but I can't think of anything.

And double jeopardy has interpreted to mean that the state prosecutors cannot bring additional charges that relate to the same set of facts surrounding Caylee's death.

Hannahclear
07-05-2011, 10:20 PM
I really don't think the jury was trying to piss off the general public, and I hope the media would have the good grace to take their good faith promise to do their absolute best to impartially judge the evidence to heart.

Jenna
07-05-2011, 10:24 PM
The jury should not be blamed. These people had to sit there day in, and day out for months, even being sequestered on a national holiday. They shouldn't be ostracized for making what they felt was an honest and fair decision in such an emotional case.