Like many, I've been following the Casey Anthony trial. Unlike some I've watched since Nancy grace first bellowed "BOMBSHELL" in July 2008. I've had many opinions on the case as evidence poured in over three long years, none of which included even a brief moment of "she didn't do it".
Now, after a long wait and a DVR full of InSession ,the end of the road comes- and justice is nowhere in sight.
There has been much outcry- obviously those crying out for Caylee , but also from those against the current jurisprudence system we incorporate and the jury itself. As we've all heard plenty of the first sentiment and likely all feel the same, I'll be tackling the latter two.
We need a professional jury system. I first heard the idea a few years ago and it resonated. America is not what she once was . We embrace mediocrity and many fall in line for the dumbing down of America.
I have no faith in a jury of my "peers" deciding my fate God forbid I'd be found on trial, rightly or wrongly, or in a case where I'd be represented by the prosecution.
If anyone struggled through jury selection on this trial you watched as those who had successful careers were dismissed for financial hardship. What were we left with ? Two teachers- one as a juror; one as an annoyingly outspoken alternate. (Russ huekeler)
The rest of the jury was comprised of a couple senior citizens (not agist but this will come into play in a moment) ; one of whom was a religious African American woman who misunderstands the Christian admonition of not judging and takes it to a ridiculous literal sense whereinsomuch she can't judge a defendant. What?! ( honorable judge belvin perry did not allow prosecution to dismiss her)
We also had people with prior drug convictions, one with familydomestic violence convictions and two who never finished high school.
Granted acquitted child murderer Casey Anthony failed to finish high school making them peers, but still...
We need a professional jury system. At least in felony cases where the evidence is now profoundly beyond the average persons understanding.
Yes the experts get up and try to put it in laymans terms, but have we looked into just how much your average jury can appreciate the gravity of such evidence?
Where confusion lies therein reasonable doubt breeds.
Our jurisprudence system was formed long ago before we even had electricity. Cases were circumstantial unless you had an eye witness.
Even take out the scientific and technological evidence of this case and what was left would have been a slam dunk for the prosecution- even within the last few decades.
Thanks to csi and NCIS- coupled with a woeful lack of understanding of civics - common jurors of today expect DNA at every crime scene and if not you haven't proven your case.
I went into the trial thinking the case was largely circumstantial, I left it surprised at the overwhelming scientific evidence brought to the table. However since no DNA was found on a piece of tape that had rotted for seven months in a hurricane flooded swamp- this jury felt the case was not proven.
I contend states cases of forensics cannot fully be appreciated by a common juror. In this case a murderer is walking, in other cases I feel you run the risk of the opposite; jurors can be awed by what they see as overwhelming evidence simply by misunderstanding and giving too much weight things that may prove nothing - and an innocent man loses his freedom.
Either way it's a risk too great to ignore and something needs done.
Go ask your grandma what googling is. She will smack you in the face. Now put that same grandma who thinks googling should be done behind closed doors and never spoken of in polite society in a jury box and tell me she can adequately wade through computer evidence.
Take your average juror and ask them to explain the process of decomposition and how a blow fly can prove a dead body is in the location.
I don't think we are doing defendants or victims any favors by placing such a heavy burden as deciding justice in the hands of Joe schmo. At least not in science laden cases.
My aim in pointing out prior arrests in other jurors on the case is this: it's well known many, not all , former "cons" have serious issues with law enforcement and prosecution. It's not a far leap to understand why. That being said, how can you have a fair jury when some may be biased against an entire branch of the system?
Yes lawyers can strike jurors however the number is limited and the judge can overrule as was done in this case.
As far as this jury goes , I feel they were all that is wrong that I listed above. In addition they were lazy - seen to be not taking notes especially during the prosecution case and deliberating less than 11 hours on a two month case. These jurors did nit even ask to see one not ONE piece of evidence out of the hundreds of pieces entered in by both sides. I'm assuming that includes transcripts of testimony.
I will not be convinced they did their due diligence in that amount of time.
This was a jury sequestered too long ( google effects of sequestration on trial) . They wanted to get home and noone had a fight left in them. It's summer afterall.
This was a jury who did not even understand the states burden. I keep hearing " the state didn't prove motive" the state does NOT have the burden of climbing in a defendants mind and profit motive. They also thought "reasonable doubt" meant any doubt at all and did not realize common sense was to be used in their determination of doubt.
This was a jury overwhelmed by confusion from forensics to defense.
This was a case that was not done justice by unqualified jurors.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Eta: Many will argue the chance of paying off pro juries however the same can be done with lay juries. Manu speculate in high profile cases such as the anthony case jurors know they will garner more interest with a controversial or shocking Verdict.
To that end juror number three jus had an all expense paid Disney trip for her ENTIRE family, sisters nieces nephews etc.
Other jurors have agents and are brokering five figure interview deals...
All on The back of a dead baby girl.