You’re making the same error. The jury is not instructed that they may not decide “guilty” unless a pathologist provides irrefutable proof of the exact cause of death, or DNA evidence connecting the crime to the accused. The jury need only decide that it is not longer reasonable to maintain an assumption of innocence. That case provided evidence enough for such a conclusion. People keep saying meaningless things like “cases are decided on hard facts.” This case should have been decided on facts as well, and the reasonably inferred logical inferences those facts offered. There is no prohibition against such an assessment, and, in fact, a good jury should be doing just that and weighing all of it in in the aggregate.
And the defense need not provide an alternative–BUT THEY DID. That’s another (IMO) logical error people are making. Don’t assess each piece of evidence by itself only, assess the evidence in its entirety. Casey, through her defense, explained the death–an accidental drowning. The duct tape on the toddler’s corpse flies in the face of that. It is an unreasonable explanation! A good jury should have assessed the fact that a bullshit, incredible explanation was provided–BY THE ACCUSED! They were not, as some people here seem to believe, required to sit there, muttering, “I’m waiting for the DNA evidence.”
So, give me the non-“pixies and unicorn” explanation that provides reasonable doubt. One that considers all the evidence. A reasonable speculation as to how that kid died and Casey didn’t kill her.
No maybe about it. The prosecution gave absolutely nothing that would have supported a manslaughter conviction. They were completely focused on premeditated murder. Hell, the only time any other potential homicide was suggested at all was maybe one minute of closing arguments where he mentioned that if the jury thought that Casey had drugged/gagged Caylee, and she died accidentally because of that, (although they didn’t even try to provide a basis for this during testimony) then they could convict her for Felony Murder instead of First Degree Murder. And both of those are crimes which carry the exact same two possible sentences, LWOP or death - obviously, the only two sentences that were acceptable to the prosecution.
They never acknowledged the possibility that she committed manslaughter for fear that doing so would weaken their case for FDM. You say “But the jurors certainly had the option of deciding manslaughter.” Let me put it to you this way. The case presented was so all or nothing, that the jurors had MUCH more legitimate basis for convicting on FDM/FM than they had for manslaughter. And if they didn’t convict on FDM, what does that tell you about their supposed “option” of manslaughter? You probably think I’m exaggerating, but I’m not. Really.
Look, I’m going to try to say this as gently as possible. A lot of the things you are saying make a lot of sense. Really, they do. And, I think my legal expertise is probably about on par with yours. (which is not a whole lot :)) But these things you’re saying that make sense, they make sense for someone who has admittedly not followed much of this trial. And in that context, some of the things you’re saying now such as “CSI Syndrome” are getting to be a bit much. And as for this bit:
Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many innocent people were locked up or put to death back then? Specially considering our modern method’s track record isn’t exactly stellar as it is.
As I said, perhaps there’s blame to go around, including the prosecution’s “all or nothing” strategy. The question is whether the verdict was “just,” not “who was to blame for it,” though that’s an interesting question.
I also don’t think the “CSI” angle is glib at all. People are tossing out phrases like “proof” and “hard facts” that suggest (to me at least) that they do NOT understand what “reasonable doubt” means within our system of jurisprudence. “You don’t know, Strat,” that kind of thing. I don’t have to know anything except that it is not reasonable to assume this person was innocent, not when all the evidence is considered–that’s my assessment, relative to my “reasonable man” standard, and that’s all any juror brings to the endeavor.
Advanced forensic techniques are a valuable tool (and, yes, in their absence, we probably had more innocent people convicted), but the absence of such evidence does not (as some people seem to think) mean the case is a non-starter. I cannot assess the total evidence in this case and conclude that it is reasonable to doubt her guilt. That’s the threshold, period. (I know you know that.)
Certainly possible, but not terribly plausible. In fact, I would call it an unreasonable conclusion. There is zero evidence that anyone else was involved, and, in fact, all that Casey offered the police to indicate someone else was involved was proven to be utter bullshit.
Casey, on the other hand, has contributed a good bit of evidence suggesting culpability–not going to the police, lying about kidnappers, offering an explanation that is contradicted by the physical evidence, etc. Nope, it is not reasonable (IMO) to doubt her guilt based on a possibility that “maybe somebody else did it.” You might just as well say, “maybe it was aliens,” based on the evidence we have. That’s certainly possible, too.
No. I believe that if one has jury nullification, which says that you do not have to find someone guilty when the evidence would require you to convict, then you necessarily have the opposite: you do not have to find someone not guilty if the evidence is insufficient.
I’m not saying the evidence was insufficient. Just that the concept of being compelled to find one way or the other indicates a lack of knowledge of what a jury is capable of doing. They are not bound by the same ethical codes of the people actually in the system, nor should they be.
I admit in hindsight that it is a stretch, as reasonable people may come to a different conclusion than I do. The entire concept of jury nullification and the judges deliberately not telling you about it colors me very negatively towards our justice system. Combined with the defense’s ethical obligation to the client over morality itself, and I tend to be easily upset when a case does not go the way I think it should have.
If I were god, I would say she has effectively proven that she cannot handle single parenthood (and it’s better than permanent sterilization, neh?). If there’s someone else around to look after the kids sometimes, I would see that as a fair compromise. But if she ever gets divorced, hubby (or the state if hubby isn’t competent as a guardian) gets full custody of the kid, instead of Casey.
As everyone keeps telling you, the defense – ANY defense, in any case – does not need evidence. It doesn’t need a theory. It doesn’t need to show anything at all.
The prosecution needs to produce evidence. Actual evidence, not simply an inference. First, evidence that a wrongful death occurred. Next, evidence that the accused took action to cause (murder of various degrees) or through culpable negligence allowed or failed to prevent (manslaughter) the wrongful death. And in this case there was absolutely zero ***evidence ***of either.
That’s the standard our system requires. It’s a high standard, no doubt. But even with this standard, countless accused are wrongfully convicted every year because people generally, and juries in particular, often make the same mistake – conflating plausibility with proof. And to that extent I agree with you; it is certainly plausible to believe that Casey is guilty of something more than the few counts on which she was found guilty. Maybe manslaughter, maybe capital murder. But there is no shred of actual evidence to prove that.
This isn’t a CSI failure either. Esoteric ground-breaking techniques are not required to prove that a murder took place. Good old fashioned blood stains on the carpet or hair on an ax will suffice. So (on a very decomposed corpse) would a bullet hole in a skull or knife marks on a rib bone. Here there was zero proof that Calee’s death was wrongful.
But even if we accept that it must have been, and decide to ignore all other possibilities (heart attack, stroke, accidental fall, even <grin> drowning – all of which are entirely possible since there could be no determination of cause of death) we then need to have proof that Casey caused or with culpable negligence failed to prevent that death. And again, even in full light of Casey’s abhorrent actions, none of them are actual evidence that she committed any crime beyond lying to investigators.
If I am ever accused of a serious crime, I hope that my jury will understand and apply the law as well as this one did.
If a jury does something like this, the judge has the power to vacate a guilty verdict. A guilty verdict must be based on the evidence and the facts proven. There is no such thing as “jury nullification” in this kind of situation. See, this is the problem with laypersons thinking they know something when it comes to jury nullification. Jury nullification is nothing more than a byproduct of the double jeopardy doctrine in combination with the principle that a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed by the state. Jury nullification is not in itself a real doctrine in our jurisprudential system. To the extent it exists at all, it exists only when a jury acquits a defendant in the face of evidence that would otherwise establish guilt.
Well, all this tells us is that you don’t understand what reasonable doubt means. That’s fine, because hardly anyone else does either, but it certainly doesn’t mean playing Sherlock Holmes and whittling down the possibilities until you’re left with a verdict.
Canny Dan did an excellent job explaining this. It’s too bad we have so-called lawyers like Nancy Grace confusing everyone. This jury did an EXCELLENT job. They ignored their feelings and made a decision based on the evidence presented. It was a horrible situation to be in because they “knew” she was guilty of something more than lying, but it couldn’t be proven. A gut feeling isn’t enough. All these people calling the juror idiots would quickly change their tune if they were ever accused of a serious crime.
You have a point there. But my point of view for purposes of this discussion has been that the verdict (which is ultimately decided by the jury) is just, based on what the jury had to work with. The impetus to defend the verdict from the jury’s POV was due to the many people, including you, (at least at first) expressing all the outrage towards their “dumb” decision.
(relevant bolding mine)
But that’s the thing. Did you consider all or even most of the evidence? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it hasn’t sounded to me like you did. If you’re getting the bulk of your knowledge of the proceedings from the talking heads on the news, I can fully understand how you feel the way you do. But I would venture to guess that anyone defending the verdict in this thread has either followed the trial more closely than you, or know more about law than you, or both. Why else would anyone defend such an unpopular verdict?
**(And at this point, before I continue, allow me to disabuse you of a sneaking suspicion you may or may not have about me. FYI, at the close of the case, the day before the verdict was announced, I am on record here on the SDMB as saying that I would have wanted to find her guilty of manslaughter, but if I was on the jury I would have to vote not guilty on all charges except the four counts of lying to the police. I tell you this just in case you might think that I would have automatically agreed with any verdict the jury made.) **
Anyway, if you observed this trial from a bird’s eye view, I can understand how you might believe that the prosecution had an airtight case and the defense was weak and incompetent. Hell, I even had that opinion towards the beginning, particularly after only the opening arguments. But the truth is that the defense was very successful at impeaching the prosecution’s witnesses and casting doubt on their scant evidence. Sure the defense had some (much publicized) stumbles along the way, but it slowly became apparent that the prosecution’s case for murder was a house of cards, and their case for manslaughter nonexistent.
Had the prosecution just charged manslaughter and other related crimes from the beginning, and presented testimony based on that, I can’t imagine how the defense could have successfully defended against that. Or, if the prosecution had adjusted tactics and pursued manslaughter charges through the testimony, (I have no idea about the legalities of effectively dropping the murder charge mid-trial) that may have worked out.
But they overcharged the defendant, underestimated the defense, and overreached with their evidence. Surely not a good recipe for a successful prosecution.
Actually, the problem might be that he considered too much of the evidence. Lots of stuff shown at trial on TV was ultimately excluded, and the jurors didn’t even see a lot of it even if they were inclined to ignore the direction to disregard.
Correct to a point. When the defense makes spectacular claims, however, as her attorney did in his opening statement, those claims need to be backed up.
I’m confused as to how you can claim that there is no evidence that a wrongful death occurred when a little girl’s body is found in the woods with duct tape on her mouth and her mother has lied repeatedly about where that child has been.
There’s a term we learn in law school: res ipsa loquitur. It means, “the thing speaks for itself.” Let’s say a man is walking down the sidewalk, and a piano falls on his head. Being the only person around, you dash up the stairs of the building he was standing next to, and the only person in that building is on the top floor next to an open, piano-sized window. Regardless of the fact that you didn’t see him push the piano out the window, it defies reason to explain the falling piano in any other way.
The issue isn’t the lack of scientific evidence linking her to the crime, it’s that jurors have come to expect such evidence, to such an extent, that they will not convict in its absence, regardless of how strong the other evidence is.
If I were convicted based on evidence as strong as that presented in this case, I’d deserve it.
Yes, in case it’s not clear, I followed the case in the papers, and on the news, but as I’ve stated in this thread, I am NOT suggesting I read the transcripts or sifted through all the evidence. Just like most of the people in this thread, I’ll wager, I’m playing Monday morning quarterback based on what I am aware of–again, just like everyone else, I’d speculate.
I do believe that there is no reasonable explanation for that death than homicide, and I am frankly confounded by folks like CannyDan who state flatly that there is zero evidence of a wrongful death or of the accused’s culpability. I’ll say again that if someone interprets a corpse with its face covered with duct tape, dropped in the woods, and an accused who fails to notify the police, lies about kidnappers, provides an explanation at odds with the physical evidence as zero evidence–well, I don’t know what to say that won’t be repeating myself. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t find that strong enough evidence,” or “I still believe there are plausible alternative explanations.” I would disagree, but chalk it up to the wide spectrum of what people consider “reasonable doubt.”
But to state, as many have in this thread, that there is no evidence, NONE, for a wrongful death or of the accused’s culpability again suggests to me that they misunderstand what constitutes evidence and how reasonable doubt can evaporate, even without the sort of “hard facts” they (and I, frankly) would have preferred.
I’m a bit amused at the lectures that continue over the lack of conclusive “lab evidence” that links the accused to the corpse or that identifies an irrefutable and specific cause of death when I have not disputed that gap. I have merely said that the facts of this case defy believability in support of the accused’s innocence. My opinion only, of course. Just like the other opinions offered in this thread, though they’re offered as if they carry the weight of a Supreme Court decision. Again–when it is not reasonable to maintain a presumption of innocence, one decides the accused is guilty. The evidence offered is not consistent with the accused’s innocence, IMO, not in any reasonable way. In my view, we must torture logic and reason to maintain that kid wasn’t killed and that Casey didn’t do the deed.
I’m pretty sure he misspoke, and means there’s zero evidence that the wrongful death was Casey’s doing. All other issues aside, it’s clear that the death was the result of a homicide by somebody.
I think it’s much more likely this was an accidental death covered up to look like a murder. What part of “there was no evidence she was murdered” do you not understand? Duct tape on her mouth isn’t proof she was murdered. Her remains showed no evidence of cause of death. If you can’t prove she was even murdered, how the hell can you convict someone of murdering her?!?!