Should We Abolish the Jury System?
On Tuesday, a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie.
As so often happens in high profile cases, the jury was wrong.
Casey clearly murdered her daughter. Her mom, Cindy, reported that Caylee was missing on July 15, 2008. Casey's cover story was unbelievably ridiculous. When Casey's mom, Cindy, confronted Casey at Casey's boyfriend's apartment, Casey actually claimed that a random baby sitter nobody had ever met had taken Caylee away over a month beforehand.
Cindy called the cops, informing them, "I found my daughter's car today. And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car." Sure enough, cadaver dogs identified the trunk of Casey's car as a dead body location, and scientists confirmed that a body had decomposed back there. A few months after a jury indicted Casey, police found Caylee's corpse in the woods near Casey's home, duct tape on her head.
The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine — they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body.
There was no evidence to any of this. It was pure conjecture, a sociopathic response to being caught red-handed. And Casey Anthony is a sociopath: outwardly charming, pathologically lying, indecently self-centered, lacking in shame or guilt, promiscuous, exploitative and irresponsible, and willing to hurt anyone and everyone in order to get her way.
So, why did the jury acquit her? Because the jury system, as currently run, is stupid.
Yes, jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (although only with regard to federal cases). It was originally considered a hallmark of civilized criminal justice because citizens did not want to be subjected to government inquisitions, with the court stacked against them. Juries were supposed to be a bulwark against governmental encroachment.
Nowadays, juries have become a hallmark of our heavily bureaucratized system. Those who have day jobs are eager to avoid serving on juries, mainly because the convoluted rules of procedure and evidence have turned summary trials into week-long events. By and large, only the least offensive — and not coincidentally, the dumbest — tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
The phrase "show trial" now means something different — it means a trial that is a show. That's precisely what O.J. and Casey Anthony were about. Every juror expects to see Sam Waterston get up and deliver opening remarks, and damned if the court system won't do its best to provide that entertainment. The provision of the Constitution that requires a public trial is now used to ensure that trials become media circuses.
Should we embrace the European inquisitorial system, in which judges ask the questions and come up with the decisions? Should we hire professional jurors?
The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely.
The rationale behind juries is still important, particularly with regard to politically-oriented trials: We don't want judges paid by government to have full authority to condemn those of different political persuasions. And the rationale behind a public trial is also still relevant — we don't want Star Chambers or clandestine hearings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
By the same token, however, our current jury system is broken beyond repair. If we are truly to restore justice to our system of justice, we must pursue the best and brightest for service, make it easier for them to serve, make the rules of evidence and procedure more efficient, and allow justice to run more smoothly. Most Americans would be willing to serve on a jury for a day. Few would be willing to do so for a week and even fewer for a month. We need more day-long trials and less month-long trials. We need more justice and less showmanship.
Caylee Anthony, sadly, wasn't just the victim of her mother here. She was the victim of a system that did not mete out justice to her murderer. There will be many more cases like Caylee Anthony until we do something to solve this mess.
Ben Shapiro, 27, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the three-time bestselling author of the upcoming book "Primetime Propaganda," and host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" on 810 AM in Orlando, FL. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
21 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
This article was clearly written by a young naive individual who has a very limited understanding of history and the legal system and society in general. There are many individuals who do not try to avoid jury duty and actually consider it a privilege to serve. I would not characterize jurists as only those too stupid to get out of it. That extremely insulting to jurists and the public in general. And while the current judicial system is far from perfect, out of all the other possibilities out there it is by far the best one available. It was created on the premise that it is best to presume innocence and require the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt so that innocent people are not unjustly convicted. The state failed to do that in the Anthony case pure and simple. The jury system worked exactly as it was designed to do and the jury came back with the correct verdict. That is not to say that Anthony did not infact cause her daughter's death; it is to say that the state did not bear the burden of proof on that issue. While I understand the author's emotions surrounding this case, it was a very immature article.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bea
Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:45 AM
|
|
|
|
"By and large, only the least offensive — and not coincidentally, the dumbest — tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty."
So you are saying that those who fulfill their civic duty are "stupid"? Shame on you. Bea is correct when she said some "consider it a privilege to serve".
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mo
Wed Jul 6, 2011 7:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Uh, Ben -- are you familiar with the concept of libel?
As for juries -- if you want to get upset about the jury system, take a look at all the innocent, unremarked people who've been put on Death Row by juries. That worries me a lot more than the occasional high-profile circuslike trial.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Wed Jul 6, 2011 7:55 AM
|
|
|
|
I am very glad I never watched Law and Order, CSI, or any of the dumb TV shows that people relish. The jury was made up of these types of TV watchers, so they had no clue about right or wrong or even how to reason intelligently.
Aside from the fact that religiously, this case can be used to show the satanic nature of the current United States (thereby bolstering our enemies in the Middle East), the best analysis I heard was on MSNBC where they stated that the prosecution brought the wrong charges and that doomed their case. It seems like the boyfriend has had little TV air play. Was he from an influential family, himself a bad seed and with wealthy parents and lawyers to keep him out of the news? Was he black? Doubtful, since if he was black the news would have been all over that story. It seems like Casey did something to the child to restrain the little girl or keep her quiet. If the duct tape was used to keep the kid quiet, and kids sometimes have stuffed up noses, the kid would have suffocated. But why wouldn't the tape have been removed? Possibly, the mother was so callous that the kid was already dead and cold by the time Casey looked back in on her so no need to remove the tape, just paint red lips on it. If it occurred in the boyfriend's apartment while they were relaxing, etc, and then maybe passing out due to intoxification, then when Casey found the body, hysteria could have set in, sort of gallows humor, to draw the lips on the duct tape before going to get the trash bags, gas can, shovel, etc from dad's house. (By the way, kids don't realize it, but dads usually know exactly where everything is in the garage and if anyone's been into it. When the body was found, George must have thought, "Oh, that's where that trash bag and duct tape went.) Question: Who and where is the boyfriend? Question: If she's been acquitted, can she write a true tell all without being tried again? Question: When she gets pregnant, are we going to see that splashed all over the news?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Wed Jul 6, 2011 8:06 AM
|
|
|
|
I am a former software developer, and I was a very good one. I am also a reasonable and objective person. I served on a jury for an auto accident injury trial once; I considered it my obligation to do so. It consisted entirely of thoughtful, objective, dedicated people. During lunchtime, I enjoyed a conversation with an electrical engineer, an architect, and a statistician, among others. They were bright people who were creative enough to wangle out of jury duty, but apparently they were too ethical. They had no trouble dissecting the evidence and leaving considerations aside. They displayed no biases and asked incisive questions. Although I found the defendant more likable than the plaintiff, the case came down to eyewitness testimony that the defendant pulled in front of the plaintiff, the defendant's admission that she checked her mirrors but did not look back, and the investigator's finding that the plaintiff was not speeding and braked immediately. We reviewed all the evidence to make sure we didn't overlook anything, but it was pretty clear cut. We found for the plaintiff. I believe we all were the kind of people most of you would want to have on your jury, especially if you were falsely accused.
In a case this emotionally charged, with so unlikable a defendant and so short a deliberation, I am inclined to believe the prosecution just didn't make their case.
Your cynicism serves you poorly here, Mr. Shapiro.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Carla
Wed Jul 6, 2011 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with you that most people who serve on juries are stupid. I once served on a jury and one stupid woman actually cried. The morons who think she was not guilty are also the morons who keep harping on lack of physical evidence while completely ignoring the fact that the toddler was so decomposed there was no physical evidence tying anyone to the crime. So I guess these idiots want to reward Anthony for successfully hiding her daughter's remains. Awesome.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Diana
Wed Jul 6, 2011 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Steven Doyle I am amazed at people who swallow media hype and consider themselves a cut above the rest. Those who only glance at the legal system on rare occasions know that anyone sitting on death row has already accumutlated a lifelong history of crimes before the law and the jury system finally catches up with them. In the case of a sociopath who may not have a prior history of crimes, fools rush in to excuse the offense because of a dysfunctional family? Why not protect the public from future mayhem? Prosecutors work with both hands tied behind their backs, precluded from telling jurors the real facts in a case. Laws have been mangled into games to aid the guilty and the hijinks continue. Defense lawyers hide behind the rule that exempts them from moral responsibility. They are trained to leap to an alternate killer premise. Why is it that defense attorneys are not compelled to stick to facts, not whole cloth inventions to escape reality? It is one thing to defend the accused. Another to aid and abet, when those same lawyers are in a position to know beyond a reasonable doubt which client is really a danger to society and should be separated from society. Defense lawyers should never be allowed to fabricate or invent absurd scenarios, as they did in the O.J. Simpson case. Society has an obligation to protect the innocent. When a dangerous sociopath is let loose on society, and even further crimes are committed, the defense attorney who set them free should suffer a penalty. Nobody seems to care about the future damage to the innocent who will cross the path of those set free by a jury that was blinded from truth and facts by legal gamesmanship.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Yvonne Prelutsky
Wed Jul 6, 2011 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
The jury got it right. There was really no case against her and her attorney did an excellent job. Unfortunately, there are to many defense attorneys that don't do their job and innocent people are convicted and often executed. Once there is a conviction, it is almost impossible to get it overturned and very expense to the wronged person. Tey state WILL NEVER admit they erred! (Nancy Grace is a good example of an over-zealous prosecutor...and a moron)
The fellow that wrote this article needs to be educated also. Obviously doesn't had the43 foggiest idea what he is talking about. How frightening to have "professional jurors"! Ever been to the DMV...take it from there. I'd rather tke y chances with a "dummy"!
Charlie
Comment: #8
Posted by: Charlie
Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bea. I served on a jury where there were only 3 people who fit Bea's description of qualified jurors honored to do their civic duty. The self appointed Foreman on that trial about a black bully who cracked open the skull of a black mother who was trying desperately to get inside the safety of her own front door with her 8 yr. old son. The accused leaped up onto that porch, cracked her from behind with a baseball bat. That mother of two small children survived to tell about it after 6 mos. in the hospital. The accused's feeble excuse was self defense. His lawyer told jurors his client thought he saw a knife in her hand. So he leaped up onto her porch and swung a lethal weapon at the back of her skull. Photos at the scene proved the extent of her wounds and that she was 300 lbs, dressed only in a pocketless mumu. When I voted guilty, the foreman stood over me in a menacing fashion and declared that I was unqualified to judge, since I had never been in a street fight. One hold out for a not guilty verdict finally confessed that she would NEVER send anyone to jail, since she had a brother in prison. The remaining few seemed to be there not to think, but to be paid by their employers to skip a day at work. They swayed from guilty to not guilty when they tired of the lockup and sided with those who broke the rules and voted not guilty against the obvious. The end result was a hung jury. We only learned later that the admonishment not to speak of the jury room hijinxs did not preclude reporting to the judge what was going on. Jurors who swore to vote guilty if it was warranted lied under oath. Foremans are usually self-appointed and blindly accepted by a group of strangers. That hung jury meant the defense lawyer had a second chance to plug the holes in the previous trial's self defense story and invent a new, better scenario the next time. All at the expense of society. The children who saw their mother try to prove that the law would protect them failed. The jurors who volunteered their time were disrespected and used. as Ben so aptly put it, the system fails in a myriad of ways.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Yvonne Prelutsky
Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Carla
Carla happened to serve on a case involving an auto accident. In that particular case, there was likely no danger to the jurors. In the average case of a murder trial, the accused is usually a thug, a gang member, and likely as not, is surrounded by equally dangerous cohorts. When jurors are interviewed in open court where friends of the accused are sitting in the front row, well intended jurors doing their civic duty are subjeced to danger. In open court, they are asked their nanes, and occupations. After jury selection, they can be followed and intimidated or worse, since anyone sitting in that courtroom now knows exactly where they live and how to find them. Jurors are often forced to stand in hallways waiting for long periods, paid a pittance for their trouble, and often walk long distances from the jury's parking lot to the courtrooms. In short, they are treated like cattle. Ben is absolutely correct. The system is unnecessarily flawed and it is getting worse.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Yvonne Prelutsky
Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with Ben. We need more justice and less showmanship. We need less gamesmanship in politics as well as in the legal system as a whole. Sadly, Ben is correct - that there will be many more cases like Caylee Anthony until we do something to solve this mess. Proof is in the way people shoved gleefully into that courtroom for the spectacle. I am comforted that there are young people such as Ben Shapiro... brave, bright, and more importantly, of good character.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Yvonne Prelutsky
Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:57 AM
|
|
|
|
From the author's description above (scroll up): "Ben Shapiro, 27, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School." Disagree with him if you like, but don't suggest that he has no idea what he's talking about. Indeed his credentials are sterling. He probably knows more about law and the legal system than the all the posters here put together.
Actually Ben is quite right when he points out that juries are made of people too stupid to get out of serving. While a small fraction of us do consider it a civic obligation or actually look forward to serving, the majority of us have jobs to go to, families to deal with, and other responsibilities. We regard jury duty as an interruption of our lives. Most of us cannot even be bothered to vote in elections, so to suggest that the best and brightest of us wind up on juries? HAHAHAHA......
The only criticism I have of the article is that it's short on specific alternatives.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Matt
Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Shapiro,you are a stark example of those who can get through a big name school but just can't do the work when they get out. Let's assume the jury got it wrong in this case, which I don't really believe. Does that really make the case that our entire judicial system should be trashed?
How many people routinely speed down our highways every day, and how many fatal accidents happen as a result? Does the tally indicate that we should do away with cars and highways?
I have news for you Shapiro, human institutions produce big failures every day. In wars, soldiers routinely get injured by friendly fire. Does that mean our military efforts should cease. Life is imperfect, student Shapiro. I guess they didn't teach you that in your Harvard law classes.
The fact is, you don't have a clue what happened to her kid. Nobody does, and that is what made the prosecution so difficult in a civilized court of law. Maybe you would go for a lynching as more effective justice?
Applying the learning that you should have achieved in law school, one huge mistake the prosecutor made was the all-or-nothing approach. Instead of charging negligent homicide, which a drowned kid in a pool might well be, they had to go for broke. Then of course, Jeff Ashton had to snicker when the defense attorney, who took care to establish better rapport with the jury than Ashton probably has with his own mother, was giving his closing argument.
Prosecutors in my experience routinely demonstrate callousness and stupidity, and that is what seems to have occurred here. But you wouldn't pick up on that because you don't have a clue about what really goes on in litigation. And you wouldn't dare criticize a prosecutor, would you?
Do you have a clue what the real impact of irresponsible columns like yours is? I doubt it. I doubt it has crossed your little snake oil peddling mind how miserable those jurors are now, as they have to deal with the fallout of coming to the decision they felt as honest civilized citizens they had to come to.
They didn't go for the lynch mob approach and didn't take the easy way out. They did what they felt the law required them to do and now they will be hounded by a mob you have helped to whip up.
Nice work. You are pretty low Shapiro. I would call you a sewer rat but that would be insulting to the rats, who next to you look like the heirs of royal seed. Let me say then that you are more putrid than the gunk on a sewer pipe, although by saying that I risk insulting the bacteria who make up that Shapiro-like stuff.
So let's throw out the American system of jurisprudence and substitute for it…what? The law according to Ben Shapiro. There it is. And what will happen if it doesn't work? Ben Shapiro will sell you yet another column asking you to buy another bridge.
Get a job as a janitor, buddy. Get some humility and learn about life.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Masako
Wed Jul 6, 2011 8:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Actually I happen to know a bit about the legal system as I have been a practicing attorney for the last 20 years. While some have had negative experiences on juries and it is true there are some low brow people serving as jurors it is not in any way an absolute. I find that people who stereotype are generally lazy 'intellectuals'. They take a few examples of anything and that deem that the universal truth and no amount of evidence can convince them otherwise. While Mr. Shapiro may have 'sterling' credentials his views are still naive. But agree or disagree, any system is going to be imperfect and as Masako says "Does that really make the case that our entire judicial system should be trashed?' Much brighter minds than Mr. Shapiro have yet to come up with a better alternative to the present system and indeed I saw no suggestion from Mr. Shapiro.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Bea
Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Re Bea: You didn't state if you worked as a trial attorney. As someone who also works in the legal system, I know there are many types of attoneys and not all of them deal with the trial or jury system. Some never see the inside of a courtroom much less voi dire.
The jurors in this case were lazy. They didn't ask to review anything. People have been convicted not only on less evidence but in cases where the body was NEVER found. The Grand Jury made the decision on the charges. The jury could have convicted Casey on a lesser charge like manslaughter since there wasn't enough evidence to prove capitol murder. How can they convict her of lying about her daughter's whereabouts but yet say she didn't kill her? Why would she need to lie at all? If the child drowned Casey could have called the authorities and not staged a murder scene. She lied about her job, a fake rich boyfriend and a nanny. She created a false reality to avoid answers about Caylee. Casey was combative when asked about Caylee by her mother, Cindy. Her boyfriend's roomates (last night on Nancy Grace) hardly heard Casey speak of Caylee and rarely saw the little girl. They also said Cindy warned them to stay away from Casey because Casey would steal all of their money. Casey was convicted of check fraud. She stole checks from her own mother. She lied about a phone call from Caylee while she was missing. She didn't report her child missing for 31 days. She partied and got a tattoo. She took pictures of getting drunk with friends. Casey's motive was that she had her daughter too young and wanted to be free. That little girl was a burden. She would have continued to lie as long as people believed her. The letters to other inmates about wanting more children was only to cover her own butt about being a loving mother. Baez and Casey caused others to waste thousands of dollars looking for Caylee when they knew she wasn't missing. He even said she wasn't missing in his opening argument as if he knew that 3 years ago. While no one knows how Caylee died for sure, most people are sure Casey did it. How a jury can get to beyond a reasonable person's doubt that Casey was not guilty is ridiculous. A child doesn't duct tape itself and puts itself in the woods. Someone put her there and it was Casey. Casey's car smelled of death and had traces of chloroform. Cindy lied under oath about the chloroform computer search to protect Casey. Baez tried to put the blame on George Anothony for the cover up of Caylee's death. Baez threw everything at the wall to see if it stuck and these jurors accepted it as fact. The molestation claim was never proven. Casey is a sociopath. Casey threw her own family under the bus for her own freedom. She came off during the trial as a heartless and selfish woman. The jury cared nothing for Caylee either not to even go over the evidence and transcripts. One juror had a cruise planned for the 7th. Can't let a murder trial of a little girl stop that. One sold her story for free tickets to Disney World but yet had doubts of Casey's innocence. Caylee will never go to Disney World. Another is holding out for a 5 figure deal and was a t.v. chef in San Fran. Jurors should not profit off their civic duty and neither should Casey. Casey will be paid millions for a book of more lies. There was no justice for a precious 2 year old little girl.
The jury system isn't as broken as much the educational one. If teachers like those in ATL were more concerned about teaching civics or history instead of giving students answers or teaching them propoganda, then potential jurors would be smarter. Aslo, the jury instructions are too confusing to the average person much less to a lower IQ. The jury never bothered (or even told they could) ask the judge to explain these instructions in layman's terms. No, not all jurors are stupid or bullies. Some believe it is their civic duty to serve. However, the O.J. and Anothony trials show that there should be a better jury selection process. Trials are won or lost at jury selection.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Rachel
Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:20 AM
|
|
|
|
I have been in law enforcement for over 16 years and can with all conviction say that Ben is right about our current system. Juries think that CSI Miami is reality and that beyond reasonable doubt is beyond all possible doubt. After all, it is possible that a conspiracy of many would somehow get together to do injustice to the wrongfully accused, ehh. I lost all confidence in the judicial system many years ago and yet still do my best to do my job properly and effectively. I however have learned never to let myself get down as I see one jury after another, foolishly let the criminals go while giving no justice to the victims. I have seen countless defense attorneys purposely mislead and use blatantly false statements to confuse juries. Defense attorneys don't play by the same rules put to prosecutors and that is wrong. For anyone to think that Ben is wrong, you are fooling yourself, he has obviously done research and I see what he wrote on a daily basis. For those of you who claim to have been on juries with upstanding citizens, you were either in a rare, but reasonable jury yourself, or just too trusting in others ability to comprehend their duties as a juror. I just hope non of you ever feel the pain of being victimized by someone only to have the judicial system/ juries victimize you a second time
Comment: #16
Posted by: chuck
Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Who failed Caylee Anthony?
First, the prosecution team for failing to explain to the jury the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "circumstantial evidence".
The jury bought the defense argument that not knowing where and how someone died meant they were required to infer reasonable doubt.
The prosecution was so certain (like most of the country who watched the trial gavel-to-gavel) that Casey was guilty, they failed to adequately inform the jury on circumstantial evidence.
And to present some of the many cases where accuseds have been found guilty of murder even without a body. (Google: guilty murder "no body")
An accidental drowning? The prosecution played a jailhouse conversation where Casey said, "now they're saying Caylee drowned in the pool. Can you believe that?" Thus Casey's own words prove Caylee did not drown in the pool and it was highly unlikely there was some other horrible accident.
During the 31 days Casey did not live with her parents she told them (1) Caylee was in the care of an imaginary nanny, (2) Caylee and Casey and the nanny were spending time in Tampa and other places with another imaginary friend, (3) all were staying another week in Tampa because the nanny was in an auto accident and they were keeping the nanny company. All lies.
Which is the most likely explanation? Casey lied to her parents because her father and brother molested her so she always lied? Or Casey was already dead?
Why did Casey borrow a shovel from a neighbor? She didn't take the stand to answer that question (her right not to do so), but still, why did Casey need a shovel?
Why did Casey abandon her parents' car in a parking garage?
Unanswered questions do not add up to acquittal. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict.
Second, grandma perjuring herself about chloroform searches.
Third, last and perhaps the most guilty of Caylee not receiving justice, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Dept. for not finding the remains when the meter reader first reported finding them. If half a year hadn't passed, perhaps DNA or fingerprints would have been found on the duct tape.
Barbados Dagny
attorney-at-law (Ret.)
Comment: #17
Posted by: Barbados Dagny
Fri Jul 8, 2011 6:51 AM
|
|
|
|
My permanently-disabed brother-in-law watched the trial from beginning to end. He, an arch Conservative, thinks Casey killed her little girl. But, he says, the govt didn't prove it.
Comment: #18
Posted by: SaguaroJack
Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
I too believe that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering Caylee and the jury was wrong in its verdict of not guilty. I don't however agree stupidity is the reason the jury made the mistake. I actually lost a little respect for Shapiro when I read that. As a well educated man he should be less ignorant. From the jurors' point of view there is evidence Casey knew of and tried to conceal Caylee's death, however without a cause of death there is no proof of foul play. They could not morally condemn Casey to death based on a gut feeling she is guilty. It's easy for us at home to watch the trial and not have to decide between a woman's life and death to declare she is guilty. Unfortunately Caylee was found as soup and bones in a bag and no cause of death will likely be determined because the majority of options for murder leave indicators on the skin and/or organs, not the bones.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Bella
Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:58 PM
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't abolish the jury system, but lawyers should not be allowed to perjur themselves in a courtroom knowing they're representing a guilty client.
Comment: #20
Posted by: John C. Davidson
Mon Aug 1, 2011 7:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Does the constitution say anything about juries? Yes. Yes it does.
Comment: #21
Posted by: SCOTT
Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
