Lesson: Don't televise murder trials

[MusicMan]

Apparently it only leads to prosecutors screwing up airtight cases.

[Limey]

Apparently it only leads to prosecutors screwing up airtight cases.

I haven't been following what I imagine to be breathless commentary on this case.  From what I have read though, the prosecution had a body, a litany of dumb shit that Casey had done/said, and a number of theories.  Not suggesting that she isn't guilty as fuck, but the case put together seemed far from "air tight".

But I agree that this shit shouldn't be on TV.  If nothing else, the pressure on the jury is enormous and detrimental.

[strosrays]

Well, I know what I am not watching tonight.

[BudGirl]

Well, I know what I am not watching tonight.

The Voice because it is over?

[Bench]

I haven't been following what I imagine to be breathless commentary on this case.  From what I have read though, the prosecution had a body, a litany of dumb shit that Casey had done/said, and a number of theories.  Not suggesting that she isn't guilty as fuck, but the case put together seemed far from "air tight".

From what I've read (in the last ten minutes) they didn't have a cause of death or any physical evidence connecting her to the death.  The bit about not reporting your child missing (or dead) for 30 days is completely fucked up.  I'm stunned that alone isn't against the law somehow (child abuse? child neglect?).   

But I agree that this shit shouldn't be on TV.  If nothing else, the pressure on the jury is enormous and detrimental.

I think just the reading of the verdict should be on TV because that shit is exciting.

[strosrays]

The Voice because it is over?

Hint: crazy eyes, lop-sided head

[Jacksonian]

Hint: crazy eyes, lop-sided head

So, Hunter Pence on the post-game.

[BudGirl]

Hint: crazy eyes, lop-sided head

It took me a minute.  Is she the one HH gets up for?

[strosrays]

So, Hunter Pence on the post-game.

Hint:  carazy-er eyes, lop-sided-er head, hickey from HH at the top of the cleavage

[Ebby Calvin]

Hint:  carazy-er eyes, lop-sided-er head, hickey from HH at the top of the cleavage

Please excuse me while I go pour bleach in my eyes.

[Limey]

Well, I know what I am not watching tonight any night.

FIFMe

[MusicMan]

Hint:  carazy-er eyes, lop-sided-er head, hickey from HH at the top of the cleavage

NSFBC

[HudsonHawk]

Hint: crazy eyes, lop-sided head

Mmmmmm

[MusicMan]

Mmmmmm

She'll be apoplyctic with rage tonight.  Just your style.

[strosrays]

She'll be apoplyctic with rage tonight.  Just your style.

The Wesson oil will literally sizzle on her skin.

[Guinness]

She'll be apoplyctic with rage tonight.  Just your style.

That whole show is full of ghouls.

[Limey]

The Wesson oil will literally sizzle on her skin.

IJTUIMMALB

[HudsonHawk]

Mrs. Hawk...who loves true crime stuff and spends every waking hour watching what I call the "murder channel", has been watching this thing non-stop.  Which means I've been watching it.  My own two cents, keeping in mind that I'm no lawyer:

She's guilty as fuck.  The prosecution had a pretty much air tight case.  The defense stepped on their collective dick at every turn.  I could not believe there was a professional attorney who could come to a traffic case so unprepared, let alone a capital murder trial.  I think the bigger lesson learned than don't televise murder trials is, when you sequestor an out of town jury for 6 weeks and make them eat Popeye's and McDonald's every day at the Motel 6...and cancel their vacation plans to Europe they've been saving for 10 years...expect them to be pissed off at the judicial system and don't expect rational decision making.

[HudsonHawk]

The Wesson oil will literally sizzle on her skin.

That's your bag man.  I prefer regular baby oil when I strip the sheets off the water bed.

[MusicMan]

IJTUIMMALB

Surprising that this acronym hasn't caught on this season.

[chuck]

Surprising that this acronym hasn't caught on this season.

Probably better IJTU.

[Ebby Calvin]

The defense stepped on their collective dick at every turn.

So that's what Kubiak's been doing during the lockout.  Surprised he won.

[HudsonHawk]

So that's what Kubiak's been doing during the lockout.  Surprised he won.

Kareem Jackson is a better defender than Jose Baez.

[strosrays]

She's guilty as fuck.

I don't know a lot past the most publicized details, so I'll defer to you on this.

NG has been running around for months, maybe years, proclaiming this woman . . . "Tot Mom" she called her, I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase is trademarked . . .  "Tot Mom" is guilty, guilty, guilty.  And now a jury has said she is not.  I don't have any doubt she'll do it, but I am a little curious how NG is going to spin it like she knew it was going to happen all along, and why the verdict from her trial by TV talking heads is more valid than one from the real live Florida justice system.

[MusicMan]

I don't know a lot past the most publicized details, so I'll defer to you on this.

NG has been running around for months, maybe years, proclaiming this woman . . . "Tot Mom" she called her, I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase is trademarked . . .  "Tot Mom" is guilty, guilty, guilty.  And now a jury has said she is not.  I don't have any doubt she'll do it, but I am a little curious how NG is going to spin it like she knew it was going to happen all along, and why the verdict from her trial by TV talking heads is more valid than one from the real live Florida justice system.

I heard NG has already called this more shocking than the OJ verdict.

[HudsonHawk]

I don't know a lot past the most publicized details, so I'll defer to you on this.

NG has been running around for months, maybe years, proclaiming this woman . . . "Tot Mom" she called her, I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase is trademarked . . .  "Tot Mom" is guilty, guilty, guilty.  And now a jury has said she is not.  I don't have any doubt she'll do it, but I am a little curious how NG is going to spin it like she knew it was going to happen all along, and why the verdict from her trial by TV talking heads is more valid than one from the real live Florida justice system.

NG will be having a coniption fit, that's for sure.  But I'm with Bench...how you can be acquitted of child abuse charges, even after you ADMIT to chloroforming your child so you can go party and then not reporting your child missing for 30 days (only admitting that the child was missing when pressed on it), is mindboggling.

[HudsonHawk]

I heard NG has already called this more shocking than the OJ verdict.

I think the prosecutors here had a better case than they did for OJ.

[strosrays]

I heard NG has already called this more shocking than the OJ verdict.

I'll believe that when I see mass rioting and destruction in the trailer parks all around South Central Florida.

[Bench]

I think the prosecutors here had a better case than they did for OJ.

There was a lot of physical evidence against OJ.  Here, they couldn't even prove the poor kid was murdered, much less who did it.

[MusicMan]

I think the prosecutors here had a better case than they did for OJ.

Prosecutors had the victim's blood in OJ's car, and OJ's blood on the crime scene, following a trail that matched a wound to OJ's hand observed by police.  From what I've read, that's FAR more than these prosecutors had.

[Bench]

even after you ADMIT to chloroforming your child so you can go party

Holy shit!  Really?

[Limey]

I don't know a lot past the most publicized details, so I'll defer to you on this.

NG has been running around for months, maybe years, proclaiming this woman . . . "Tot Mom" she called her, I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase is trademarked . . .  "Tot Mom" is guilty, guilty, guilty.  And now a jury has said she is not.  I don't have any doubt she'll do it, but I am a little curious how NG is going to spin it like she knew it was going to happen all along, and why the verdict from her trial by TV talking heads is more valid than one from the real live Florida justice system.

The night after the Duke Lacross verdict, she phoned it in.  Literally.  She cried off sick.

[strosrays]

Prosecutors had the victim's blood in OJ's car, and OJ's blood on the crime scene, following a trail that matched a wound to OJ's hand observed by police.  From what I've read, that's FAR more than these prosecutors had.

Not to mention dude riding around LA threatening to kill himself right after the crime.

[Limey]

I think the prosecutors here had a better case than they did for OJ.

"@EricStangel: Don't worry, they'll probably get Casey Anthony when she tries to steal back her sports memorabilia..."

[strosrays]

The night after the Duke Lacross verdict, she phoned it in.  Literally.  She cried off sick.

She shrugged off the Melinda Duckett suicide right after her ambush interview on national TV in a pretty crass and cynical way, at least I thought so at the time.

[HudsonHawk]

There was a lot of physical evidence against OJ.  Here, they couldn't even prove the poor kid was murdered, much less who did it.

Well, they had DNA in the trunk of her car that was "consistent" with Caylee, but it was so badly decompossed that they coudn't say definitively.  They also had the child's decompossed dead body taped up in a trash bag.  I'm not convinced that's a totally legitimate way to deal with the accidental death of your child, but perhaps it brings us to another lesson:  it's easier to get away with killing a toddler or infant because you can hide the body longer before people start asking questions.

ETA:  Also, IIRC, much of that physical evidence with OJ was not admissible at the trial.  So while they had it, it wasn't given to the jury.  I've heard numerous OJ jurors say if they knew during deliberation what they learned after the trial, no way they'd have acquitted.

[Limey]

Not to mention dude riding around LA threatening to kill himself right after the crime.

...during a pivotal Rockets playoff game.  Guilty for that alone!

[HudsonHawk]

Not to mention dude riding around LA threatening to kill himself right after the crime.

He should have partied like it was 1999.

[HudsonHawk]

Holy shit!  Really?

Really.  This woman's behavior toward her child was mindnumbing.

[strosrays]

Well, they had DNA in the trunk of her car that was "consistent" with Caylee, but it was so badly decompossed that they coudn't say definitively.  They also had the child's decompossed dead body taped up in a trash bag.  I'm not convinced that's a totally legitimate way to deal with the accidental death of your child, but perhaps it brings us to another lesson:  it's easier to get away with killing a toddler or infant because you can hide the body longer before people start asking questions.

I did not know she admitted to chloroforming her toddler so she could go out partying.  I am with you, there should be some provision for putting her away for awhile just for that.

[Limey]

Holy shit!  Really?

From her own sweet, innocent mouth.

[strosrays]

You know, there should be a pool where one can bet on which currently nationally unknown case NG will focus an insane amount of coverage and intensity on next.  If one could figure it out ahead of time, maybe there is a way to get in early and cash in some sort of way.

Sort of like paying Beeks to get you an early copy of the orange juices futures forecast.

[HudsonHawk]

You know, there should be a pool where one can bet on which currently nationally unknown case NG will focus an insane amount of coverage and intensity on next.  If one could figure it out ahead of time, maybe there is a way to get in early and cash in some sort of way.

Sort of like paying Beeks to get you an early copy of the orange juices futures forecast.

Well, Roger Clemens' trial starts tomorrow...

[Bench]

How about the Jamie Leigh Jones trial which is happening right now?

[MusicMan]

I think the prosecutors here had a better case than they did for OJ.

Via Twitter:

@HaHaWhitePPL
So was Nicole Brown Simpson's family when your dad got OJ off. RT @KimKardashian: CASEY ANTHONY FOUND NOT GUILTY!!!! I am speechless!!!

[94CougarGrad]

The Simpson trial really turned me off televised murder trials. Somehow I'm just not surprised the chick was found not guilty, though.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

 I am with you, there should be some provision for putting her away for awhile just for that.

But then she wouldn't be able to look for the real killer and play golf and shit.

[Noe]

A couple of quick thoughts:

1. The OJ Simpson trial had, at it's core, jury nullification... this trial did not.
2. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for a felony trial and jurors are instructed to use this standard to the fullest.  It's incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove guilt, not the defense to prove innocent.  (Other standards such as "who is more credible", "shadow of a doubt", and "within reason" are not applicable to felony trials, those are reserved for civil and custody trials).

The jurors are not, in my mind, at fault here.  They did the job I expect from a US citizen asked to serve as a felony trial juror... they held the responsibility of the prosecution to the standard necessary and the prosecution did not meet up with that standard.  Introducing character flaws in lieu of credible evidence is playing to emotions and that, as a juror, would anger me.  "You expect me to send someone to prison for a very long time based on their character flaws?".  Ah, no!  Blame the prosecution if you will, unlike in the OJ trial where they did all they had to do to present a case complete with DNA evidence.

I was asked to report to jury duty several weeks ago.  I was selected to be on the last cut of the panel for a felony trial.  It was not a comfortable case to be involved with.  It dealt with a child and an adult male.  Very emotionally charged from the minute we heard what the adult male was being charged with.  But as the lawyers presented us with questions to select the final twelve, it was evident that the prosecution was going to rely on the child as a witness on the stand and she voluteered that the child was going to have holes in her memory in terms of what times and dates and even what happened.  So the maximum penalty for what this person was charged with was 99 years (and he had two charges that carried that penalty and one charge that carried 25 years as the maximum).  We would be asked to decide the penalty as well.  I was not selected and I was glad because my emotions were conflicted being a volunteer to work with kids, including my stint as a head coach for a sports camp teaching baseball to underprivileged kids.

I'd hate to think I sent a man to prison for a very long time if the evidence was shaky and not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Then again, how could I possibly (huge emphasis on "POSSIBLY*) set free a mail who hurt a child?  I want the prosecution to be on their game and make it a slam dunk, but that is why things go to trial (and not settled out of court).  Don't inslut me as a juror and tell me to work on emotion.  That is not how the system works... for any of us.

[HudsonHawk]

The jurors are not, in my mind, at fault here.  They did the job I expect from a US citizen asked to serve as a felony trial juror... they held the responsibility of the prosecution to the standard necessary and the prosecution did not meet up with that standard.  Introducing character flaws in lieu of credible evidence is playing to emotions and that, as a juror, would anger me.  "You expect me to send someone to prison for a very long time based on their character flaws?".  Ah, no!  Blame the prosecution if you will, unlike in the OJ trial where they did all they had to do to present a case complete with DNA evidence.

The jury here is completely to blame.  They absolutely and 100% totally botched their responsibilities.  They allowed the defense to play on their ignorance of the law and their responsibilities.  The defense provided nothing...nothing, yet the jury allowed themselves to manufacture a doubt using their imaginations, not the EVIDENCE.  They should be ashamed of themselves

[Limey]

Kim Kardashian is upset with Casey Anthony verdict? Ur father defended O.J.! Starting the Kardashian tradition of getting black men off.

[subnuclear]

"You expect me to send someone to prison for a very long time based on their character flaws?".

If those character flaws are accompanied by that person's dead child being buried in the woods after not being reported missing for a month and child's DNA being found in the trunk of that person's car, then yes. If you can find another way to connect those dots, I would love to hear it.

[EasTexAstro]

If those character flaws are accompanied by that person's dead child being buried in the woods after not being reported missing for a month and child's DNA being found in the trunk of that person's car, then yes. If you can find another way to connect those dots, I would love to hear it.

I seem to be the only person who had no idea what everyone was talking about until this thread started, and then I still waited until  got home to look up any information. I had really never even heard of this story. I still haven't dug in very deep, but was there a question about the DNA from the car being too degraded to make a proper identification, or did I misread that somewhere?

(I still think there should be some kind of charge for not reporting a missing child and child abuse from the stories I read, but I am not sure the jury had been given enough solid information for a death sentence.)

[HudsonHawk]

If those character flaws are accompanied by that person's dead child being buried in the woods after not being reported missing for a month and child's DNA being found in the trunk of that person's car, then yes. If you can find another way to connect those dots, I would love to hear it.

Herein lies the problems with this jury.  They should not be finding ways to connect the dots, they should ONLY consider the evidence presented to them.  "Reasonable doubt" is not a charge to search for a "reason to doubt".

[HudsonHawk]

(I still think there should be some kind of charge for not reporting a missing child and child abuse from the stories I read, but I am not sure the jury had been given enough solid information for a death sentence.)

They never even got to that point.  They had opportunity to convict her of lesser charges, and refused to do so. 

[Limey]

If those character flaws are accompanied by that person's dead child being buried in the woods after not being reported missing for a month and child's DNA being found in the trunk of that person's car, then yes. If you can find another way to connect those dots, I would love to hear it.

The Scots have a nifty option in their version of law: a jury can render a verdict of "not proven".  I think that would be the best way to describe this situation.  There are few - and I'm not one of them - who doubt that she killed her child; but the prosecution had very little to their case other than supposition.  The defense was laughable, but they don't have to prove shit.  The prosecution, reaching for the highest bar possible (death penalty) had nothing but a tale of a shitty, shitty mother who's daughter is tragically dead.

People want someone punished for this - and she's probably the correct person to punish - but the State of Florida went after her crimes they could not prove, instead of ones they could.  Manslaughter or negligent homicide would seem more provable.  Shit, even not reporting the death has to be some sort of crime, even in Florida.  But they went for murder, failed to prove it.  They couldn't even say how Cayleee died, so how can they prove murder?

Don't blame the jury (I haven't seen the judge's instructions, but I bet they are fairly explicit on the topic of reasonable doubt), blame the prosecutors.

[subnuclear]

I misunderstood the DNA stuff, apologies. There was other evidence, though.

[HudsonHawk]

The Scots have a nifty option in their version of law: a jury can render a verdict of "not proven". 

We have the same thing..."not guilty".

I think that would be the best way to describe this situation.  There are few - and I'm not one of them - who doubt that she killed her child; but the prosecution had very little to their case other than supposition. 

They had a mountain of circumstantial evidence.  More than enough to clear the bar for Murder 1, let alone the lesser charges.

The prosecution, reaching for the highest bar possible (death penalty) had nothing but a tale of a shitty, shitty mother who's daughter is tragically dead.

They also had the lesser charges.

Manslaughter or negligent homicide would seem more provable.

She was acquitted of those too.

  Shit, even not reporting the death has to be some sort of crime, even in Florida.

You would think, but she was acquitted of that too.

Don't blame the jury (I haven't seen the judge's instructions, but I bet they are fairly explicit on the topic of reasonable doubt), blame the prosecutors.

The prosecution did everything properly.  They were spot on.  The jury stomped their collective dick.

[Limey]

We have the same thing..."not guilty".

Not the same.  Scots have Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.  Not Proven leaves the door open for a retrial.

They had a mountain of circumstantial evidence.  More than enough to clear the bar for Murder 1, let alone the lesser charges.

Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict on murder, especially in a death penalty case.

They also had the lesser charges.

She was acquitted of those too.

You would think, but she was acquitted of that too.

I believe they all related to Caylee's death, not to the general shoddiness of prior parenting.  If she's not guilty in the death, she's not guilty of the lesser charges surrounding the death.

The prosecution did everything properly.  They were spot on.  The jury stomped their collective dick.

Yes.  12 people got together to acquit an obvious murderer, probably just to see what Nancy Grace would say.

[HudsonHawk]

Not the same.  Scots have Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.  Not Proven leaves the door open for a retrial.

Ah...Ok.  Thanks for the clarification.

Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict on murder, especially in a death penalty case.

90% of murder convictions have only circumstantial evidence (fingerprints, ballistics, DNA, semen stains, bloody gloves, etc).  Rarely is direct evidence available in a murder case, as one of the parties to the act is dead.

I believe they all related to Caylee's death, not to the general shoddiness of prior parenting.  If she's not guilty in the death, she's not guilty of the lesser charges surrounding the death.

They didn't have to find premeditation or even that it was intentional.  They only had to find that the evidence pointed that her actions contributed to Caylee's death.  The prosecution went way beyond that, IMO.

Yes.  12 people got together to acquit an obvious murderer, probably just to see what Nancy Grace would say.

I didn't say they did it out of spite.  I said they did it out of ignorance.

[Guinness]

Yes.  12 people got together to acquit an obvious murderer, probably just to see what Nancy Grace would say.

If there was some way to tie Natalie Holloway to this....

[JimR]

Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict on murder, especially in a death penalty case.


I

where did you hear that? circumstantial evidence is no less probative than or inferior to direct evidence. that is a lay person's misconception.

[HudsonHawk]

where did you hear that? circumstantial evidence is no less probative than or inferior to direct evidence. that is a lay person's misconception.

And often times much more reliable.

[Limey]

90% of murder convictions have only circumstantial evidence (fingerprints, ballistics, DNA, semen stains, bloody gloves, etc).  Rarely is direct evidence available in a murder case, as one of the parties to the act is dead.

Those things are not circumstantial, and none of them were present in this case.

They didn't have to find premeditation or even that it was intentional.  They only had to find that the evidence pointed that her actions contributed to Caylee's death.  The prosecution went way beyond that, IMO.

The only DNA they had was too badly degraded to be proven to be from Caylee.  They had Casey's despicable behaviour before and after the child's death, her incessant lying, plus some internet searches, a trunk that "smelled like a dead body", some chloroform that they never tied to her... and a tattoo.

I didn't say they did it out of spite.  I said they did it out of ignorance.

I know you didn't.  I was being hyperbolic.  You are being very arrogant to assert that 12 people are too stupid to see what you see.

I just swear to God … I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do … But it wasn't there.

It doesn't feel good. It was a horrible decision to have to make.

[Limey]

where did you hear that?

Law and Order, probably.  I stand corrected.

[HudsonHawk]

Those things are not circumstantial, and none of them were present in this case.

Those things are entirely circumstantial.  DNA is the epitome of circumstantial evidence.

The only DNA they had was too badly degraded to be proven to be from Caylee.  They had Casey's despicable behaviour before and after the child's death, her incessant lying, plus some internet searches, a trunk that "smelled like a dead body", some chloroform that they never tied to her... and a tattoo.

They also had motive, opportunity, the lies, and a direct link between all of the physical evidence and Casey Anthony.  As another lawyer pointed out to me today...a brick is not a wall.  But when you place all of those bricks together, you can build a pretty strong wall.

I know you didn't.  I was being hyperbolic.  You are being very arrogant to assert that 12 people are too stupid to see what you see.

Well it is what it is.

[BudGirl]

Law and Order, probably.  I stand corrected.

Like you watch network television.

[strosrays]

Like you watch network television.

He meant Reno 911.

[BudGirl]

He meant Reno 911.

Is that a television program?   Don't you know I don't watch cool television programs or movies? 

[EasTexAstro]

Is that a television program?   Don't you know I don't watch cool television programs or movies? 

What if Brad were on Dancing with the Stars?

[Limey]

They also had motive, opportunity, the lies, and a direct link between all of the physical evidence and Casey Anthony.  As another lawyer pointed out to me today...a brick is not a wall.  But when you place all of those bricks together, you can build a pretty strong wall.

How so?  What physical evidence?  They had a body with duct tape on it; nothing else.  Nothing was "directly linked" to Casey.  Nothing.

ETA an article:

Despite a massive investigation and a seeming impressive array of forensics, prosecutors were unable during the month-long trial to present any direct, physical evidence tying Anthony to her daughter’s death.

[BudGirl]

What if Brad were on Dancing with the Stars?

His partner better rip his shirt off.  I'd vote using every email I could come up with.  He'd be a winner!!!!!!!  That man is BEAUTIFUL. 

Thank you for making me smile today.  Thinking of Brad, especially without a shirt, makes me need a bunk.

[HudsonHawk]

How so?  What physical evidence?  They had a body with duct tape on it; nothing else.  Nothing was "directly linked" to Casey.  Nothing.

ETA an article:

The duct tape.  The gatorade bottle with a syringe and chloroform.  The computer searches.  The DNA in the trunk of her car.  The rotting corpse in the trunk of her car.  Her history of using chloroform on the child.  Her failure to report the child missing.  Her behavior during the search.  Her knowldege of the whereabouts of the body.  Her borrowing the shovel.  Everything...EVERYTHING pointed to one person and one person only...Casey Anthony.

[EasTexAstro]

The duct tape.  The gatorade bottle with a syringe and chloroform.  The computer searches.  The DNA in the trunk of her car.  The rotting corpse in the trunk of her car.  Her history of using chloroform on the child.  Her failure to report the child missing.  Her behavior during the search.  Her knowldege of the whereabouts of the body.  Her borrowing the shovel.  Everything...EVERYTHING pointed to one person and one person only...Casey Anthony.

She wouldn't get the justice she deserves in jail. OJ will take care of it.

[Limey]

The duct tape.  The gatorade bottle with a syringe and chloroform.  The computer searches.  The DNA in the trunk of her car.  The rotting corpse in the trunk of her car.  Her history of using chloroform on the child.  Her failure to report the child missing.  Her behavior during the search.  Her knowldege of the whereabouts of the body.  Her borrowing the shovel.  Everything...EVERYTHING pointed to one person and one person only...Casey Anthony.

They never proved the duct tape was the murder weapon, nor that Casey had put it on her daughter.  Chloroform was part of a theory, but never proven to have anything to do with Caylee's death.  The computer searches are irrelevant because they never showed how Caylee died so they can't link the searched topics to the death.  The DNA in the trunk could not be identified.  They never proved that there had been a body in the trunk.  The rest of it is just horrible behaviour.

Everything pointed to Casey, and I'd be gobsmacked if she didn't do it.  But they never proved it, and certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt", because they proved nothing except that Casey is a horrible, horrible person and that her daughter is dead.

[Limey]

As an aside, not reporting a child missing for 31 days is not against the law in Florida.  Seems weird to me.

[HudsonHawk]

They never proved the duct tape was the murder weapon, nor that Casey had put it on her daughter.  Chloroform was part of a theory, but never proven to have anything to do with Caylee's death.  The computer searches are irrelevant because they never showed how Caylee died so they can't link the searched topics to the death.  The DNA in the trunk could not be identified.  They never proved that there had been a body in the trunk.  The rest of it is just horrible behaviour.

Everything pointed to Casey, and I'd be gobsmacked if she didn't do it.  But they never proved it, and certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt", because they proved nothing except that Casey is a horrible, horrible person and that her daughter is dead.

This is the CSI Effect at it's finest.  You refuse to consider any of those things, or all of those things in combination, as evidence of guilt.  Anything short of an hour-long narrative, shot from behind the "fourth wall", complete with soundtrack, documenting the act, is "reasonable doubt" in your mind.

Furthermore, the jury has already indicated that they improperly considered wild-ass speculation rather than the evidence put before them.  Can't prove it wasn't aliens?  Reasonable doubt.  One word to describe this jury:  FAIL

[Lurch]

As another lawyer pointed out to me today...a brick is not a wall.  But when you place all of those bricks together, you can build a pretty strong wall.

And if those bricks were actually meant for a patio...

[Noe]

The jury here is completely to blame.  They absolutely and 100% totally botched their responsibilities.  They allowed the defense to play on their ignorance of the law and their responsibilities.  The defense provided nothing...nothing, yet the jury allowed themselves to manufacture a doubt using their imaginations, not the EVIDENCE.  They should be ashamed of themselves

The defense is NOT supposed to prove ANYTHING... only defend themselves against charges.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[Noe]

If those character flaws are accompanied by that person's dead child being buried in the woods after not being reported missing for a month and child's DNA being found in the trunk of that person's car, then yes. If you can find another way to connect those dots, I would love to hear it.

Did they prove that Casey did it?  That is the burden on the prosecution.... NOT the responsibility of the jurors to connect dots.  Jurors have only the responsibility to judge for themselves that the burden has been met... or not.  Imagine yourself in a felony case, not a small thing.  You want the prosecution to be put in the responsibility to prove you guilty.... not the jury!

[JimR]

The defense is NOT supposed to prove ANYTHING... only defend themselves against charges.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

correct. the defense does not have to put on any evidence or witnesses.

[HudsonHawk]

The defense is NOT supposed to prove ANYTHING... only defend themselves against charges.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But they can't throw out wild-ass speculation either. Or at least the jury is not supposed to consider it.  But by the jury's own admission, that's exactly what happened.

[Ty in Tampa]

Imagine yourself in a felony case...

He does kind of look like Henry Fonda. Kinda...

[Noe]

The Scots have a nifty option in their version of law: a jury can render a verdict of "not proven".  I think that would be the best way to describe this situation.  There are few - and I'm not one of them - who doubt that she killed her child; but the prosecution had very little to their case other than supposition.  The defense was laughable, but they don't have to prove shit.  The prosecution, reaching for the highest bar possible (death penalty) had nothing but a tale of a shitty, shitty mother who's daughter is tragically dead.

People want someone punished for this - and she's probably the correct person to punish - but the State of Florida went after her crimes they could not prove, instead of ones they could.  Manslaughter or negligent homicide would seem more provable.  Shit, even not reporting the death has to be some sort of crime, even in Florida.  But they went for murder, failed to prove it.  They couldn't even say how Cayleee died, so how can they prove murder?

Don't blame the jury (I haven't seen the judge's instructions, but I bet they are fairly explicit on the topic of reasonable doubt), blame the prosecutors.

Thank you.

[sporadic]

when you place all of those bricks together, you can build a pretty strong wall.

you can so long as you get HOA approval

[HudsonHawk]

you can so long as you get HOA approval

Rabble rouser.

[sporadic]

Rabble rouser.

been a long season....this is the most fun I have had on here in quite some time.

[Noe]

where did you hear that? circumstantial evidence is no less probative than or inferior to direct evidence. that is a lay person's misconception.

Yup.  In our jury panel, many of the candidate's opinions were corrected by the judge, the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  Many were vociferous enough to claim that whoever made the better "case" would win in their minds.  WOW!

[Limey]

This is the CSI Effect at it's finest.  You refuse to consider any of those things, or all of those things in combination, as evidence of guilt.  Anything short of an hour-long narrative, shot from behind the "fourth wall", complete with soundtrack, documenting the act, is "reasonable doubt" in your mind.

Furthermore, the jury has already indicated that they improperly considered wild-ass speculation rather than the evidence put before them.  Can't prove it wasn't aliens?  Reasonable doubt.  One word to describe this jury:  FAIL

Did you not read the jurors' quotes I posted?  They said there was not enough evidence to convict.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell.  Everything else is "wild-assed speculation", because there's nothing to prove any of it.  The prosecution has to prove their case; they did not.

[HudsonHawk]

Did you not read the jurors' quotes I posted?  They said there was not enough evidence to convict.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell.  Everything else is "wild-assed speculation", because there's nothing to prove any of it.  The prosecution has to prove their case; they did not.

I read the quotes.  I also read other ones where at least two jurors admitted that a) they didn't trust George Anthony based on the unsubtanitated inuendo improperly put to them by the defense, and b) they considered the "drowning theory", which also was not based on any of the facts in evidence and should NOT have been any consideration.

[Noe]

Did you not read the jurors' quotes I posted?  They said there was not enough evidence to convict.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell.  Everything else is "wild-assed speculation", because there's nothing to prove any of it.  The prosecution has to prove their case; they did not.

Yup, jurors are not supposed to put things together and say "Here is how it happened"  They are supposed to judge the prosecution's case meets the burden given to them.  It is a simple matter of "yes" or "no".  This is a felony case and if we lose focus what is the burden, our laws are useless.

[Limey]

I read the quotes.  I also read other ones where at least two jurors admitted that a) they didn't trust George Anthony based on the unsubtanitated inuendo improperly put to them by the defense, and b) they considered the "drowning theory", which also was not based on any of the facts in evidence and should NOT have been any consideration.

So, the only stuff admissable in the trial is things that help prove the prosecution's case?  The defense claimed that Caylee drowned, how do you propose that the jury not hear that?

[HudsonHawk]

Yup, jurors are not supposed to put things together and say "Here is how it happened"

Yet by their own admission, that's exactly what they did.  JURY FAIL!!

[Limey]

[Yet by their own admission, that's exactly what they did.  JURY FAIL!!

So everyone is entitled to an opinion as to what happened...except the jurors?

[HudsonHawk]

So, the only stuff admissable in the trial is things that help prove the prosecution's case?  The defense claimed that Caylee drowned, how do you propose that the jury not hear that?

If that's the defense, they have to properly present evidence of it by putting forth evidence, having someone testify that it *could* have happened...something.  They didn't.  Baez simply threw that skunk into the jury box in opening statement and never again mentioned it.  It should have NEVER been any consideration to the jury.  Speculation is simply not evidence.

[HudsonHawk]

So everyone is entitled to an opinion as to what happened...except the jurors?

Exactly!!!!

The jury is to rule on the evidence put before them.  They are not to turn themselves into attorneys arguing a particular position.

[MusicMan]

So, the only stuff admissable in the trial is things that help prove the prosecution's case?  The defense claimed that Caylee drowned, how do you propose that the jury not hear that?

The defense claimed that in opening arguments, but never provided evidence to support it.

[Noe]

correct. the defense does not have to put on any evidence or witnesses.

In our panel, many of the potential jurors reacted negatively to the defense lawyer asking directly if they had a problem with his decision NOT to place his client on the witness stand.  "Why won't he defend himself?" was some of the whispers. A person behind me said "Then he's hiding something".  WOW!  Finally someone put their hand up and said "I think he should get up on the stand so we can judge his mannerisms and how much he stutters and falters with his testimony.  We need to hear his testimony so the prosecutor can catch him lying!"

All I could think was "How Perry Mason of these people" (for those who can't understand the frame of reference... "How television/hollywood influenced opinion of these people".  Clearly the judge was frustrated with this panel and one reason he said he chose sixty people to choose 12 from.

[Limey]

If that's the defense, they have to properly present evidence of it by putting forth evidence, having someone testify that it *could* have happened...something.  They didn't.  Baez simply threw that skunk into the jury box in opening statement and never again mentioned it.  It should have NEVER been any consideration to the jury.  Speculation is simply not evidence.

The defense can say what they like.  It's the prosecution's burden to prove that what they say happened, happened.  In this case, they failed in that task.  In that failure, they allowed the defense's story to perpetuate.

[Limey]

The jury is to rule on the evidence put before them. 

We agree.  So what evidence did they have that tied Casey to the murder?

[HudsonHawk]

The defense can say what they like.

No, they cannot.  I don't know what the rules are in Limeyland, but in the US of A, trials follow the rules of evidence.  Counsel cannot simply throw out anything they want with no basis for it.

[Limey]

The defense claimed that in opening arguments, but never provided evidence to support it.

They didn't have to, because the prosecution never proved that Casey was a murderer.

[HudsonHawk]

We agree.  So what evidence did they have that tied Casey to the murder?

You mean besides her knowlege of the rotting corpse of her dead daughter?  The duct tape, the computer searches, the shovel, the DNA in the car, her behavior, her lies, her not reporting the child missing, the motive, the opportunity...etc, etc.  We've been over and over this. 

[Noe]

Yet by their own admission, that's exactly what they did.  JURY FAIL!!

They defended their client.  If they do not do that, they would be disbarred and the trial would be subject to review and possibly called a mistrial.  It's worse when a defense attorney does not provide *answers* to accusations.  Plausible answers.  See, if the prosecutor does not bring it up, the defense cannot arbitraily bring in "alien abduction theories" or other subject matter that is not relevant to the case.  "Relevant" is for the judge to approve or disapprove.

You need to understand better how felony trials work or else you will continue to think wrongly about this case and perhaps even a case you may find yourself involved with.

[HudsonHawk]

They didn't have to, because the prosecution never proved that Casey was a murderer.

Yes they do.  If they jury is to consider it as evidence, the defense has to provide some basis for it.

[Limey]

No, they cannot.  I don't know what the rules are in Limeyland, but in the US of A, trials follow the rules of evidence.  Counsel cannot simply throw out anything they want with no basis for it.

So the judged fucked up too?

Perhaps we should make you judge, jury and executioner from now on, because everyone else is too incompetent to be trusted to do it properly.

[sporadic]

They didn't have to, because the prosecution never proved that Casey was a murderer.

proving a murder would seem to be downright tricky if you cannot prove a cause of death

[HudsonHawk]

They defended their client.  If they do not do that, they would be disbarred and the trial would be subject to review and possibly called a mistrial.

I assume you mean the defense, not the jury.  And I'm not convinced that wasn't their plan all along...to get set it up for a re-trial based on ineffective counsel.

See, if the prosecutor does not bring it up, the defense cannot arbitraily bring in "alien abduction theories" or other subject matter that is not relevant to the case.  

Yes that's EXACTLY what the defense did.

You need to understand better how felony trials work or else you will continue to think wrongly about this case and perhaps even a case you may find yourself involved with.

You need to learn how the rules of evidence work.

[Noe]

Yes they do.  If they jury is to consider it as evidence, the defense has to provide some basis for it.

WOW!

[HudsonHawk]

proving a murder would seem to be downright tricky if you cannot prove a cause of death

You don't even have to produce a body to prove murder, let alone exact cause of death.

[HudsonHawk]

WOW!

Eureka moment for you?

[Limey]

You mean besides her knowlege of the rotting corpse of her dead daughter?  The duct tape, the computer searches, the shovel, the DNA in the car, her behavior, her lies, her not reporting the child missing, the motive, the opportunity...etc, etc.  We've been over and over this. 

She "had knowledge" of the rotting corpse?  I haven't seen/heard that.

The rest is unproven supposition.  You keep going on about these things as if they are sacrosanct.  The DNA, again, was never proven to be Caylee's, it's just random DNA.  I'm sure there's traces of DNA in my trunk, doesn't mean that I killed Caylee or anyone else.

Her shitty behaviour is neither a crime nor proof of murder.  It's just proof of her shittyness.  Also not a crime.

[HudsonHawk]

So the judged fucked up too?

Some people are arguing that.  He rightly instructed the jury not to consider any of the George Anthony sexual abuse (which the jury ignored), and probably should have done the same thing with the drowning bullshit.  Although, given the ignorance of the jury, probably wouldn't have mattered.

Perhaps we should make you judge, jury and executioner from now on, because everyone else is too incompetent to be trusted to do it properly.

Well, I think you have a strong case of the old adage "juries are made up of people too dumb to get out of jury duty."

[JimR]

Yes they do.  If they jury is to consider it as evidence, the defense has to provide some basis for it.

HH, the defense does not have to produce any evidence, and it can create reasonable solely by cross-examination.

[sporadic]

You don't even have to produce a body to prove murder, let alone exact cause of death.

That may be true, but don't make a significant part of your case be the method of death if you cannot prove the cause of death.

[Limey]

proving a murder would seem to be downright tricky if you cannot prove a cause of death

Bingo!  That's step 1.

[Noe]

I assume you mean the defense, not the jury.  And I'm not convinced that wasn't their plan all along...to get set it up for a re-trial based on ineffective counsel.

Prosecutor "Your honor, I object on the grounds of relevance..."

Judge "overruled..."

(Jury has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!)

Yes that's EXACTLY what the defense did.

Provided relevant answers?  How.. well... defense attorney of them!

You need to learn how the rules of evidence work.

Obviously.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm sure there's traces of DNA in my trunk, doesn't mean that I killed Caylee or anyone else.

In the trunk? That sounds less comfortable than an airplane bathroom.

[HudsonHawk]

She "had knowledge" of the rotting corpse?  I haven't seen/heard that.

Welcome to the trial.

I'm sure there's traces of DNA in my trunk, doesn't mean that I killed Caylee or anyone else.

No, but it's circumstantial evidence that you've been in or near your trunk.

Her shitty behaviour is neither a crime nor proof of murder.  It's just proof of her shittyness.  Also not a crime.

But it's evidence that she killed her daughter.

[Limey]

You don't even have to produce a body to prove murder, let alone exact cause of death.

You have to prove the cause of death if you want the duct tape, chloroform and the internet searches to be considered relevant.

[MusicMan]

They didn't have to, because the prosecution never proved that Casey was a murderer.

In order for the jury to consider the drowning theory, then there must have been evidence introduced of such a theory.  The defense never introduced such evidence.  The defense could have said in opening arguments "We intend to show that OJ Simpson killed this child", but absent evidence introduced that OJ killed this child, then the jury could not have properly considered the theory that OJ was the real killer (this time).

[BudGirl]

In the trunk? That sounds less comfortable than an airplane bathroom.

or something that gets put into the trunk later.

[HudsonHawk]

Provided relevant answers?  

Improperly threw out wild ass speculation with absolutely no intent to back it up with evidence.

[Limey]

In order for the jury to consider the drowning theory, then there must have been evidence introduced of such a theory.  The defense never introduced such evidence.  The defense could have said in opening arguments "We intend to show that OJ Simpson killed this child", but absent evidence introduced that OJ killed this child, then the jury could not have properly considered the theory that OJ was the real killer (this time).

The prosecution never proved that Caylee didn't drown.  The defense didn't have to prove shit.

[HudsonHawk]

You have to prove the cause of death if you want the duct tape, chloroform and the internet searches to be considered relevant.

No you don't.  You've been watching Law and Order again, haven't you?

[Noe]

HH, the defense does not have to produce any evidence, and it can create reasonable solely by cross-examination.

Hence my "WOW!" which of course was misunderstood.  Go figure.

[HudsonHawk]

The prosecution never proved that Caylee didn't drown.  The defense didn't have to prove shit.

Drowning shouldn't even be in the equation.  The jury CANNOT engage in speculation.  They can consider the EVIDENCE.

[HudsonHawk]

HH, the defense does not have to produce any evidence, and it can create reasonable solely by cross-examination.

Which they didn't do.  They created doubt with baseless speculation.  The defense cannot throw shit against the wall and hope that something sticks without any evidence, without witnesses, or without questions in cross-examination.  The idea of drowning was even mentioned during the trial.

[sporadic]

Which they didn't do.  They created doubt with baseless speculation.  The defense cannot throw shit against the wall and hope that something sticks without any evidence, without witnesses, or without questions in cross-examination.  The idea of drowning was even mentioned during the trial.

I thought that is exactly what they did.  make the argument it could be anything other than what the prosecution says it is.  Whether it survives cross examination is up to the prosecution.  Right? 

[BudGirl]

Which they didn't do.  They created doubt with baseless speculation.  The defense cannot throw shit against the wall and hope that something sticks without any evidence, without witnesses, or without questions in cross-examination.  The idea of drowning was even mentioned during the trial.

I'm really confused why you believe a defense needs to present evidence.  I understand why a defense would in a civil case, but not a criminal case.

And that is all I'm going to say in this regard.

[MusicMan]

I thought that is exactly what they did.  make the argument it could be anything other than what the prosecution says it is.  Whether it survives cross examination is up to the prosecution.  Right? 

The point is that the jury considered arguments made not during cross, but during opening statements, which are not supported by evidence.

[OregonStrosFan]

Here is the standard the jurors were charged with following:

Florida Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases rule 3.7:

3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

[Noe]

In order for the jury to consider the drowning theory, then there must have been evidence introduced of such a theory.  The defense never introduced such evidence.  The defense could have said in opening arguments "We intend to show that OJ Simpson killed this child", but absent evidence introduced that OJ killed this child, then the jury could not have properly considered the theory that OJ was the real killer (this time).

It is up to the prosecutor to object (even in opening arguments) and the judge to rule on the objection.  If he/she rules in favor of the objection, THEN the jury is instructed to ignore what was just said... they CANNOT consider that as germaine to the case.  Jurors depend on prosecutors and judges doing their jobs so THEY in turn can do theirs.

[HudsonHawk]

I thought that is exactly what they did.  make the argument it could be anything other than what the prosecution says it is.  Whether it survives cross examination is up to the prosecution.  Right? 

They didn't make that argument.  That's my point.  The defense can argue the prosecutions evidence is in doubt.  They can shoot holes in the prosecutions theory.  They can cross-examine witnesses challenging their credibility.  But they cannot put forth speculation in their opening statements, without any basis for it in the actual argument, and expect it to be considered by the jury.  Here, in a nutshell, is what happened:

Prosecution opening statment:  Casey Anthony did this.

Defense in opening statement:  We will show that it wasn't Casey Anthony, but rather Sporadic of Houston, TX who did this.

Trial:  Sporadic is never mentioned again.  No testimony, no evidence.

Jury:  Well, the prosecution never proved that it wasn't Sporadic, so that's a reasonable doubt.

Jury FAIL.

[Noe]

Improperly threw out wild ass speculation with absolutely no intent to back it up with evidence.

While the prosecutor was answering e-mails and the judge was asleep?  Wow, the jury was the only people who should judge relevance?  Really?

[MusicMan]

It is up to the prosecutor to object (even in opening arguments) and the judge to rule on the objection.  If he/she rules in favor of the objection, THEN the jury is instructed to ignore what was just said... they CANNOT consider that as germaine to the case.  Jurors depend on prosecutors and judges doing their jobs so THEY in turn can do theirs.

The defense said "we will show" that Caylee drowned.  The prosecutors cannot object to taht; the defense has every right to lay out their anticipated argument.  No judge would have sustained that objection.

The jury, as OSF showed, was instructed to consider only the evidence introduced.  They failed in that charge.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm really confused why you believe a defense needs to present evidence.  I understand why a defense would in a civil case, but not a criminal case.

And that is all I'm going to say in this regard.

They only have to present evidence if they want it to be considered by the jury.  They don't have to say a word.  But then they cannot expect the jury to speculate and argue alternative positions.

[JimR]

The point is that the jury considered arguments made not during cross, but during opening statements, which are not supported by evidence.

i do not have a dog in this fight because i did not watch the trial, but i was on a Yogurt Shop jury.

[sporadic]

It is up to the prosecutor to object (even in opening arguments) and the judge to rule on the objection.  If he/she rules in favor of the objection, THEN the jury is instructed to ignore what was just said... they CANNOT consider that as germaine to the case.  Jurors depend on prosecutors and judges doing their jobs so THEY in turn can do theirs.

The Goddamned Gremans ain't got nothing to do with it!

[Noe]

Whether it survives cross examination is up to the prosecution.  Right? 

*DING, DING, DING*  Even then, at the very moment it is introduced to a jury, they CAN object and the judge is the ONLY ONE who can rule relevance... not the jury.  IF the prosecution does not object, then the judge cannot rule and thus the jury is free to *consider* what was presented to them as relevant information.

[HudsonHawk]

It is up to the prosecutor to object (even in opening arguments) and the judge to rule on the objection.  If he/she rules in favor of the objection, THEN the jury is instructed to ignore what was just said... they CANNOT consider that as germaine to the case.  Jurors depend on prosecutors and judges doing their jobs so THEY in turn can do theirs.

You cannot object in opening arguments to the defense's proposed defense.

[MusicMan]

The Goddamned Gremans ain't got nothing to do with it!

Gremans?

Forget it, he's rolling.

[HudsonHawk]

*DING, DING, DING*  Even then, at the very moment it is introduced to a jury,

It was NEVER properly introduced to the jury.  That's the point.  It was laid out in opening statements as the grounds for the defense, then never introduced during the actual arguments of the case. 

[sporadic]

Gremans?

Forget it, he's rolling.

 

I blew a friggin layup there

[Lurch]

i do not have a dog in this fight because i did not watch the trial, but i was on a Yogurt Shop jury.

Woah

[Noe]

The defense said "we will show" that Caylee drowned.  The prosecutors cannot object to taht; the defense has every right to lay out their anticipated argument.  No judge would have sustained that objection.

The jury, as OSF showed, was instructed to consider only the evidence introduced.  They failed in that charge.

So there is no room in your mind to consider that the defense did not need to "show" that Caylee drowned because in the course of the case, they simply said "We don't need to any more, the prosecution has NOT met the burden of proof" and the jury in turn felt the same way?  Really?

A defense attorney can say "I intend to NOT put my client on the stand' and then change his/her mind depending on how the case is going.  You're saying they are not allowed to change their tatic if necessary?  If the speculation was allowed, it is not the jury's fault, it is the prosecution failing to object to idle and not relevant speculation.  Your shooting a jury when they have nothing to do with the incompetence of the prosecution.

[Noe]

i do not have a dog in this fight because i did not watch the trial, but i was on a Yogurt Shop jury.

Huge case here in Austin... remember it well.  I mentioned the "Little Rascals" case in South Carolina during our quadeer (sp?) and that got the attention of the prosecutor who then bumped me off the jury.  Burden of proof.  It is only thing that should drive a felony case.  It is a standard that should never be diminished to "who presents a better case".

[HudsonHawk]

So there is no room in your mind to consider that the defense did not need to "show" that Caylee drowned because in the course of the case, they simply said "We don't need to any more, the prosecution has NOT met the burden of proof" and the jury in turn felt the same way?  Really?

You seem to fundementally misunderstand.  No one has argued that the defense must present evidence.  We're simply saying that the jury cannot speculate on alternate theories based on things that are not in evidence.

If the speculation was allowed, it is not the jury's fault, it is the prosecution failing to object to idle and not relevant speculation.  Your shooting a jury when they have nothing to do with the incompetence of the prosecution.

There was nothing to object TO.  There was no evidence presented during the trial.  They cannot object to something that doesn't exist.  The jury essentially considered statements made outside of the evidence, same as if they formed their opinions based on something they heard from Nancy Grace.

[BizidyDizidy]

Huge case here in Austin... remember it well.  I mentioned the "Little Rascals" case in South Carolina during our quadeer (sp?) and that got the attention of the prosecutor who then bumped me off the jury.  Burden of proof.  It is only thing that should drive a felony case.  It is a standard that should never be diminished to "who presents a better case".

Voir Dire.

[HudsonHawk]

Huge case here in Austin... remember it well.  I mentioned the "Little Rascals" case in South Carolina during our quadeer (sp?) and that got the attention of the prosecutor who then bumped me off the jury.  Burden of proof.  It is only thing that should drive a felony case.  It is a standard that should never be diminished to "who presents a better case".

And it should damn sure never diminish to "jury, use your imagination to manufacture some doubt".

[Noe]

You cannot object in opening arguments to the defense's proposed defense.

Really?

[Noe]

Voir Dire.

Thanks, you must be German!

[HudsonHawk]

Really?

One, that was during closing statments, not opening.  Secondly, that wasn't an objection to the defense's strategy.  I didn't mean you *can't* object, I meant that there's no grounds for an objection stating "I don't want the accused to be allowed a defense."

[Noe]

You seem to fundementally misunderstand.  No one has argued that the defense must present evidence.

Really? Hmmmmm... nevermind, too easy.

We're simply saying that the jury cannot speculate on alternate theories based on things that are not in evidence.

You don't understand that the JUDGE instructs a jury on what to consider.  They are not left to their own devices, they are left to the responsibility to rule on the innocent until *PROVEN* guilty.

There was nothing to object TO.

Cool, then stop blaming the jurors.

There was no evidence presented during the trial.

That did not meet the burden of proof.

They cannot object to something that doesn't exist.

Relevance?

The jury essentially considered statements made outside of the evidence, same as if they formed their opinions based on something they heard from Nancy Grace.

Or maybe not... but that doesn't fit in your narrow view.

[Noe]

One, that was during closing statments, not opening.  Secondly, that wasn't an objection to the defense's strategy.  I didn't mean you *can't* object, I meant that there's no grounds for an objection stating "I don't want the accused to be allowed a defense."

Relevance?  You object so the jury can hear you say "Bullshit!' in court talk.

[JimR]

a smart attorney objects to an opening statement only if the lawyer is arguing rather than stating what "the evidence will show."

[Noe]

a smart attorney objects to an opening statement only if the lawyer is arguing rather than stating what "the evidence will show."

Thank you barrister.

[HudsonHawk]

You don't understand that the JUDGE instructs a jury on what to consider.  They are not left to their own devices, they are left to the responsibility to rule on the innocent until *PROVEN* guilty.

But it's still up to the jury to obey the orders.

Cool, then stop blaming the jurors.

They're the ones who failed.

That did not meet the burden of proof.

Huh?

Relevance?

Huh?

Or maybe not... but that doesn't fit in your narrow view.

The jury has admitted that's what they did.

[austro]

a smart attorney objects to an opening statement only if the lawyer is arguing rather than stating what "the evidence will show."

Should the prosecution, in their closing remarks, have pointed out that the defense never presented any evidence to support the drowning hypothesis mentioned in the defense's opening remarks? Would that level of attention to detail be something customarily expected in this sort of case, or is that just something that armchair analysts like me notice after the fact?

[Noe]

But it's still up to the jury to obey the orders.

Jury nullification is a chance both sides take during a trial.

They're the ones who failed.

Not what anyone in the legal community is saying.  Prosecutor had a weak case and depended on the emotion of a child dead and mother who has very questionable scruples.  Enough for a death sentence (potentially).  Obviously the prosecution was depending more on the emotion and character flaws then rock solid evidence.   But had you been int eh jury, you would have allowed the prosecutor to skate on not doing their job.

Huh?

Huh?

The jury has admitted that's what they did.

Not from what Limey posted... no.

[JimR]

Should the prosecution, in their closing remarks, have pointed out that the defense never presented any evidence to support the drowning hypothesis mentioned in the defense's opening remarks? Would that level of attention to detail be something customarily expected in this sort of case, or is that just something that armchair analysts like me notice after the fact?

i think a good lawyer would have pointed that out. "they said in their opening the evidence would show...but there is not one iota of ev of that theory in this record" or some such. cannot comment on the D's failure to testify, though.

[Noe]

Should the prosecution, in their closing remarks, have pointed out that the defense never presented any evidence to support the drowning hypothesis mentioned in the defense's opening remarks? Would that level of attention to detail be something customarily expected in this sort of case, or is that just something that armchair analysts like me notice after the fact?

They have that right.

[Noe]

i think a good lawyer would have pointed that out. "they said in their opening the evidence would show...but there is not one iota of ev of that theory in this record" or some such. cannot comment on the D's failure to testify, though.

And clearly, at that point, the jury is now free and clear to throw out that speculation.  Prosecutors should do their job and that is prove a person guilty and not depend on emotion of a case to allow them to win a case for the state and protect us all from people like this in our society.

[Limey]

They didn't make that argument.  That's my point.  The defense can argue the prosecutions evidence is in doubt.  They can shoot holes in the prosecutions theory.  They can cross-examine witnesses challenging their credibility.  But they cannot put forth speculation in their opening statements, without any basis for it in the actual argument, and expect it to be considered by the jury.  Here, in a nutshell, is what happened:

Prosecution opening statment:  Casey Anthony did this.

Defense in opening statement:  We will show that it wasn't Casey Anthony, but rather Sporadic of Houston, TX who did this.

Trial:  Sporadic is never mentioned again.  No testimony, no evidence.

Jury:  Well, the prosecution never proved that it wasn't Sporadic, so that's a reasonable doubt.

Jury FAIL.

You are fixated on one part of what the jurors said, while conveniently, for your argument, ignoring everything else.  They also said that the prosecution never proved their case.  That is enough for reasonable doubt (see OSF's post above.)

[Limey]

i think a good lawyer would have pointed that out. "they said in their opening the evidence would show...but there is not one iota of ev of that theory in this record" or some such. cannot comment on the D's failure to testify, though.

I believe Casey's dad denied his part in the accidental drowning / crazy cover-up story.

[Bench]

Which they didn't do.  They created doubt with baseless speculation.  The defense cannot throw shit against the wall and hope that something sticks without any evidence, without witnesses, or without questions in cross-examination.  The idea of drowning was even mentioned during the trial.

I know I'm late to the party and not fully caught up but this is where you are completely wrong.

[HudsonHawk]

 But had you been int eh jury, you would have allowed the prosecutor to skate on not doing their job.

The prosecution did their job. I would have insisted the jury do theirs.

Not from what Limey posted... no.

Limey's post is not the be all end all.

[HudsonHawk]

I know I'm late to the party and not fully caught up but this is where you are completely wrong.

I hope you're not a lawyer.

[Limey]

You cannot object in opening arguments to the defense's proposed defense.

FWIW, a defense witness testified that the grandfather had told her that Caylee's death was "an accident that spiralled out of control".  He denied saying it (along with pretty much anything else they asked him), but statements to it being an accident - albeit not drowning specifically - were introduced by the defense.

[HudsonHawk]

FWIW, a defense witness testified that the grandfather had told her that Caylee's death was "an accident that spiralled out of control".  He denied saying it (along with pretty much anything else they asked him), but statements to it being an accident - albeit not drowning specifically - were introduced by the defense.

But not drowning.

[Bench]

I hope you're not a lawyer.

I hope you're not a juror.

[HudsonHawk]

I hope you're not a juror.

I'm sure every lawyer hopes that.

[Bench]

i think a good lawyer would have pointed that out. "they said in their opening the evidence would show...but there is not one iota of ev of that theory in this record" or some such. cannot comment on the D's failure to testify, though.

I agree. Opening is the chance to make a lot of promises about what evidence the jury will see. At closing, a good lawyer points out how the evidence lived up to each of the promises and points out how the other side's similar promises were unfulfilled. It is tricky without pointing to a failure to testify in criminal cases.

Criminal defense attorneys can and should point out speculative alternative theories that explain how what happened was not a result of the defendants criminal conduct. Now doing so while maintaining credibility is the tough part.  Baez didn't strike me as a brilliant attorney by any means, but I think that when you can't prove that a murder occurred it's a tough burden to prove who the murderer was.

[Bench]

I'm sure every lawyer hopes that.

The prosecutors in this case would disagree.

[HudsonHawk]

The prosecutors in this case would disagree.

After the fact. But I'm pretty confident they wouldn't have wanted me on at the beginning. Nor would the defense. I'm usually pretty offensive to both sides, if not both. I've wondered after the few times I've been struck from a jury whether it was the prosecution or the defense. I've been struck twice, after not uttering a single word in the voir dire.  Both times the jury ended up all women.

[Limey]

But not drowning.

I said that.

[Bench]

After the fact. But I'm pretty confident they wouldn't have wanted me on at the beginning. Nor would the defense. I'm usually pretty offensive to both sides, if not both. I've wondered after the few times I've been struck from a jury whether it was the prosecution or the defense. I've been struck twice, after not uttering a single word in the voir dire.  Both times the jury ended up all women.

Were you struck or just not picked?  For most folks staying quiet near the beginning of a panel is a sure way to end up in the box. 

[HudsonHawk]

Were you struck or just not picked?  For most folks staying quiet near the beginning of a panel is a sure way to end up in the box. 

Struck. I was #3 once and number #9 the other. They skipped over me when calling the selected jurors. I assume that means I was struck, correct?  And the prosecutor in the murder trial I was paneled said the same thing. "Typically those of you who sit there silently hoping the day ends are the ones who end up in the box".

[HudsonHawk]

I agree. Opening is the chance to make a lot of promises about what evidence the jury will see. At closing, a good lawyer points out how the evidence lived up to each of the promises and points out how the other side's similar promises were unfulfilled. It is tricky without pointing to a failure to testify in criminal cases.

So does the prosecution say "hey remember that drowning thing from last month... forget about it". Or should he rely on the jury to consider the month's worth of evidence actually presented?

Criminal defense attorneys can and should point out speculative alternative theories that explain how what happened was not a result of the defendants criminal conduct. Now doing so while maintaining credibility is the tough part.

But they have to it by the proper means such as cross-examination or poking holes in the prosecutions case. They can't simply say "hey, use your imagination."

[Bench]

Struck. I was #3 once and number #9 the other. They skipped over me when calling the selected jurors. I assume that means I was struck, correct?  And the prosecutor in the murder trial I was paneled said the same thing. "Typically those of you who sit there silently hoping the day ends are the ones who end up in the box".

Big goatee'd angry looking white middle aged guy with a professional occupation?  I'd say the defense struck you (in civil cases in Texas it would be the opposite).

In seriousness, though, for all those who may want to not get picked to sit on a jury (and shame on you!) the best thing you can do to avoid the box is speak loudly and often during voir dire.

So does the prosecution say "hey remember that drowning thing from last month... forget about it". Or should he rely on the jury to consider the month's worth of evidence actually presented?

If it's that big of a deal, then they should.  If they don't feel it's worth the time to address it, then they shouldn't.  It's a strategy call.

But they have to it by the proper means such as cross-examination or poking holes in the prosecutions case. They can't simply say "hey, use your imagination."

Not really.  The jurors are allowed to draw any reasonable inference they want based upon their common sense and personal experiences.  It's certainly misdirection, but there's no "can't."  The prosecution has to prove their case and overcome any misdirection.  A venerable defense strategy is to confuse the issues to manufacture reasonable doubt.  That's the way the system works.  

[HudsonHawk]

Big goatee'd angry looking white middle aged guy?  I'd say the defense struck you.

I'm not angry looking.  Am I?  In the murder trial, I figured it was the defense.  Last juror the attorney for a young black man accused of murder wants is a white male.  Of course, I'm probably the exact opposite of what he thought.

Not really.  The jurors are allowed to draw any reasonable inference they want based upon their common sense and personal experiences.  It's certainly misdirection, but there's no "can't."  The prosecution has to prove their case and overcome any misdirection.  A venerable defense strategy is to confuse the issues to manufacture reasonable doubt.  That's the way the system works.  

Then why have any evidence at all?  If it's perfectly acceptable for the jury to make up theories in their mind, despite there being no evidence, then posit and argue those theories in deliberation, then what's the point?

And by "can't", I mean "shouldn't", as in against the rules of professional conduct.  I have no doubt that attorneys regularly engage in dishonesty and jurors break the rules and judges' instructions.

[Bench]

I'm not angry looking.  Am I?  

Depends on if you're wearing a hawaiian shirt.

Then why have any evidence at all?  

That's the whole point.  It's not the defense's job to introduce evidence.  That's what the burden of proof is all about.  The evidentiary burden is completely and entirely on the prosecution. 

And by "can't", I mean "shouldn't", as in against the rules of professional conduct.  I have no doubt that attorneys regularly engage in dishonesty and jurors break the rules and judges' instructions.

It's not dishonesty, it's holding the state to its burden. 

[HudsonHawk]

That's the whole point.  It's not the defense's job to introduce evidence.  That's what the burden of proof is all about.  The evidentiary burden is completely and entirely on the prosecution. 

I'm not talking about the defense, I'm talking about the jury.  It's not acceptable for them to make shit up.  They should base their decision on the evidence, not on speculation.

It's not dishonesty, it's holding the state to its burden. 

It's slimeball lawyering at it's lowest.

[Bench]

I'm not talking about the defense, I'm talking about the jury.  It's not acceptable for them to make shit up.  They should base their decision on the evidence, not on speculation.

I think you're hung up on one juror saying one thing about drowning.  The 12 of them reached a unanimous verdict awfully quickly.  That specific quote probably had little to do with it.

It's slimeball lawyering at it's lowest.

I would say it's a matter of degrees, but in general risking your credibility with the jury is a heady gamble.  Furthermore, I in no way endorse Baez's professionalism.  

[HudsonHawk]

I think you're hung up on one juror saying one thing about drowning.  The 12 of them reached a unanimous verdict awfully quickly.  That specific quote probably had little to do with it.

More than one of them said it (or at least it's been reported), and they said it was a huge factor, as was the baseless child molestation charge against George Anthony.  The judge instructed them to not consider that, but it obviously affected their opinion of him.  And don't get me started on the quick verdict.  I'm still having a hard time seeing how they combed over 6 weeks worth of evidence in 10 hours.

I would say it's a matter of degrees, but in general risking your credibility with the jury is a heady gamble.  Furthermore, I in no way endorse Baez's professionalism.  

I just can't rationalize degrees of dishonesty.  I guess that's one reason I'm not a lawyer.

[Bench]

More than one of them said it (or at least it's been reported), and they said it was a huge factor, as was the baseless child molestation charge against George Anthony.  The judge instructed them to not consider that, but it obviously affected their opinion of him.  And don't get me started on the quick verdict.  I'm still having a hard time seeing how they combed over 6 weeks worth of evidence in 10 hours.

They each evidently made their decision long before those ten hours began.

I just can't rationalize degrees of dishonesty.  I guess that's one reason I'm not a lawyer.

It's not a matter of dishonesty, it's a matter of holding the state to its burden of proof.  But it's obvious you'll never agree with that and I think my shift just ended.

[HudsonHawk]

They each evidently made their decision long before those ten hours began.

I agree.  That bothers me.

It's not a matter of dishonesty, it's a matter of holding the state to its burden of proof.  But it's obvious you'll never agree with that and I think my shift just ended.

Purposely trying to confuse the jury in order to manufacture doubt is dishonesty.  Period.

[JimR]

I just can't rationalize degrees of dishonesty.  I guess that's one reason I'm not a lawyer.

go fuck yourself.

[Ebby Calvin]

Purposely trying to confuse the jury in order to manufacture doubt is dishonesty.  Period.

Happens in 75% of the civil cases I've been in.  A lot of shit gets tossed around in openings, it's up to the other side to call you on it if they feel it's necessary.
"12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty" doesn't always apply to jurors, either.  If the prosecution didn't clearly convince each and every one of them of murder, either the prosecution didn't do its job well or the case was shitty to begin with.

And this is the best argument I've seen for circumstantial evidence.

Just my opinions.

[Limey]

More than one of them said it (or at least it's been reported), and they said it was a huge factor, as was the baseless child molestation charge against George Anthony.  The judge instructed them to not consider that, but it obviously affected their opinion of him.  And don't get me started on the quick verdict.  I'm still having a hard time seeing how they combed over 6 weeks worth of evidence in 10 hours.

Juror #2 said it, as well as Juror #14 - who wasn't in the room, had no say and is therefore irrelevant.  Juror #2 said that they slam-dunked the lying charges straight away - guilty across the board - and then went on to the serious charges.  Murder was 10-2 for not guilty at the first vote, manslaughter was 6-6.  He said he was the last vote to switch to not guilty on manslaughter, and they were unanimous on all counts in the end.

[HudsonHawk]

Happens in 75% of the civil cases I've been in.  

It's still dishonest.

[Ebby Calvin]

It's still dishonest.

You're right, it is.  But I think it's justified as a trial tactic and generally accepted as such by both sides.

[HudsonHawk]

You're right, it is.  But I think it's justified as a trial tactic and generally accepted as such by both sides.

It may be accepted practice, but it's not justified.

[HudsonHawk]

Juror #2 said it, as well as Juror #14 - who wasn't in the room, had no say and is therefore irrelevant.  Juror #2 said that they slam-dunked the lying charges straight away - guilty across the board - and then went on to the serious charges.  Murder was 10-2 for not guilty at the first vote, manslaughter was 6-6.  He said he was the last vote to switch to not guilty on manslaughter, and they were unanimous on all counts in the end.

Juror #2 has also implied that they would have convicted her of a lesser charge than Murder 1 had that been available.  And this bit about not being able to convict because of the death penalty.  All of which says to me that the jurors had no clue as to what they were doing, had no idea that lesser charges *were* available, and completely oblivious to the fact that punishment is determined in a separate process and the death penalty is not automatic, nor even applicable on the lesser charges.

[Ebby Calvin]

Juror #2 has also implied that they would have convicted her of a lesser charge than Murder 1 had that been available.  And this bit about not being able to convict because of the death penalty.  All of which says to me that the jurors had no clue as to what they were doing, had no idea that lesser charges *were* available, and completely oblivious to the fact that punishment is determined in a separate process and the death penalty is not automatic, nor even applicable on the lesser charges.

The judge holds a fair amount of responsibility in this, too.  I didn't watch or keep up with the trial, though, so maybe he spelled out the charge and the jury ignored it.  Also, in civil cases (not sure about criminal), each side drafts a charge and argue their respective points with the judge beforehand.  So if the charge was unclear, the prosecution shares some of that blame as well.

I'll repeat though - I didn't follow this trial.  I could be missing the mark entirely.

[Noe]

I hope you're not a juror.

Amen, although I doubt he'd ever make it to the final panel.

[Limey]

Juror #2 has also implied that they would have convicted her of a lesser charge than Murder 1 had that been available.  And this bit about not being able to convict because of the death penalty.  All of which says to me that the jurors had no clue as to what they were doing, had no idea that lesser charges *were* available, and completely oblivious to the fact that punishment is determined in a separate process and the death penalty is not automatic, nor even applicable on the lesser charges.

Juror #2 said he, and 5 others, voted to convict on manslaughter.  During the deliberation they all switched to not guilty.  As far as I know, no one has talked about why those jurors switched.  Anything you may think about what went on in the jury room is pure speculation on your part.

[HudsonHawk]

Amen, although I doubt he'd ever make it to the final panel.

Have been several times, including a murder case.  But you're right, I'm not a lawyer's type.

[HudsonHawk]

The judge holds a fair amount of responsibility in this, too.  I didn't watch or keep up with the trial, though, so maybe he spelled out the charge and the jury ignored it.  Also, in civil cases (not sure about criminal), each side drafts a charge and argue their respective points with the judge beforehand.  So if the charge was unclear, the prosecution shares some of that blame as well.

I'll repeat though - I didn't follow this trial.  I could be missing the mark entirely.

I watched the judge give instruction.  He read from a prepared statement, but I thought it was pretty clear.

[Noe]

That's the whole point.  It's not the defense's job to introduce evidence.  That's what the burden of proof is all about.  The evidentiary burden is completely and entirely on the prosecution.  

Amen!

It's not dishonesty, it's holding the state to its burden.  

A-freaking-men!

[HudsonHawk]

Juror #2 said he, and 5 others, voted to convict on manslaughter.  During the deliberation they all switched to not guilty.  As far as I know, no one has talked about why those jurors switched.  Anything you may think about what went on in the jury room is pure speculation on your part.

I'm only commenting on what I've heard so far.  From what Juror #2 has said, there is a clear indicationt that at least not all of them fully understood their charge.

[subnuclear]

Amen, although I doubt he'd ever make it to the final panel.

I was called for jury duty in Montgomery County, Maryland for a rape case and they called in about 100+ potential jurors. They went around and asked us if we committed any crime and whether we had there was something about a rape case that made it difficult to be impartial. Those were the only questions. They went down the list of the first 75 potential jurors and the jury ended up being totally demographically random. No clue how they decided who should go on.

[Noe]

Happens in 75% of the civil cases I've been in.  A lot of shit gets tossed around in openings, it's up to the other side to call you on it if they feel it's necessary.

I never thought *this* was confusing to anyone... I guess I was wrong based on this one thread.  It really is not a hard concept to understand.

"12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty" doesn't always apply to jurors, either.  If the prosecution didn't clearly convince each and every one of them of murder, either the prosecution didn't do its job well or the case was shitty to begin with.

AND guess who *helped* select this jury?  Yup, the prosecutor.

[Noe]

Have been several times, including a murder case.  But you're right, I'm not a lawyer's type.

Color me not surprised.  You have to understand to serve.  At swearing in, we (about 300 of us) stood and held our hand up to swear to give "truthful and honest" answers to the prosecutor and defense attorney if chosen to be on a panel to be consider for the final twelve.  First damn question asked of all of us by the prosecutor once sixty of us were chosen to go to District court 187 "What did you swear to do while here with us these next few hours?"

Silence. ("Oh, come on" whispers me)

One man raises hand "To judge this case fairly?"  (eyeroll from prosecutor)

(Me) "Ahem... to give truthful and honest answers"

(Prosecutor) "Thank you Mr. Banda"

[Limey]

I'm only commenting on what I've heard so far.  From what Juror #2 has said, there is a clear indicationt that at least not all of them fully understood their charge.

Juror #2:

"Everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions,” the juror said, “she was done."

But the Pinellas County jury knew that this was not a case that was to be decided based on emotions and they had to work very hard to keep that element out of their deliberations.

“We just wanted to go on the evidence that was presented to us,” he said.

“I just swear to God …,” he said, his voice falling silent, overcome by tears. “I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do …

“But it wasn’t there.”

...

“We didn’t know how she died, we didn’t know when she died,” said Juror No. 2, who was one of the 10. “Technically, we didn’t even know where she died.

“You couldn’t say who did it. To me, that’s why it was aggravated manslaughter of a child.”

...

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.  Juror No. 2 was the last holdout.

[Noe]

I was called for jury duty in Montgomery County, Maryland for a rape case and they called in about 100+ potential jurors. They went around and asked us if we committed any crime and whether we had there was something about a rape case that made it difficult to be impartial. Those were the only questions. They went down the list of the first 75 potential jurors and the jury ended up being totally demographically random. No clue how they decided who should go on.

Might be because of the case, but usually they (both sides) have several people assisting them.  One is usually very silent and is observing your mannerism, you wincing, yes, your basic reactions to things they say.  The lawyers aren't going to catch most of those reaction, if they do, it's usually the first three rows.   In poker, it's called a "tell" and if you're not good at having a poker face, especially if you're in an emotionally charge case to begin with, you're going to tell a lot.

Second avenue to select a jury is to ask general questions that anyone can volunteer to answer (this is usually when they get a pretty good idea on me).  They ask basic understanding of the law type of questions to see if people have a keen understanding on how to carry out the responsibility of a juror.  One guy volunteered several weeks ago when the defense lawyer asked a general question about "grand juries" and he said this "If a grand jury found enough reason to indict, then I want you to prove to me that the man is innocent".

Lastly, they will ask direct questions of people who have been sitting on the fence.  This is usually a set of questions you can answer with one short sentence: "If found guilty, would you have any problem considering the full range of punishment for the defendant?" Each one of the sixty could answer "Yes" or "No".

[HudsonHawk]

I never thought *this* was confusing to anyone... I guess I was wrong based on this one thread.  It really is not a hard concept to understand.

People being selfish and dishonest?  No, it's not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right though.

[Noe]

Juror #2:

"Everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions,” the juror said, “she was done."

Quite honestly, it is very different on the court of public opinion (where feelings and emotions play a huge part in judging a person) and a trial case where you have to leave that behind and hold to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty"  I felt the prosecution, in his statement of "when I saw the picture of the baby's skeleton with duct tape, I thought the jury would *feel* the same thing I did and find her guilty".

*feel*?

[Noe]

People being selfish and dishonest?  No, it's not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right though.

How arrogant from way over here to judge folks who served and performed their duty.  You have that right and I hope you never forget that the very thing you judge is the very thing that gives you that right.

[HudsonHawk]

Juror #2:

Also from Juror #2:

“If they’d charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted or, you know, got a guilty sentence, but not for death. Not for first degree.”

"If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

These statements certainly indicate to me that at least Juror #2 didn't fully understand that a) there WERE lesser charges they could have convincted, and b) that the jury wasn't supposed to be deliberating punishment during this phase.

[HudsonHawk]

Color me not surprised.  You have to understand to serve.  

No, you have to be a mindless sheep or they don't want you.  They purposely weed out those who DO understand.

[HudsonHawk]

How arrogant from way over here to judge folks who served and performed their duty.  You have that right and I hope you never forget that the very thing you judge is the very thing that gives you that right.

Lawyers didn't give me the right to call them dishonest. Rights are not granted by attorneys.  Sorry if that bursts your civic bubble.

[Limey]

People being selfish and dishonest?  No, it's not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right though.

The defense attorney is the defendant's advocate.  In this case, the defendant told her attorney that Caylee drowned in a pool accident and was disposed of in a stupid, panicked manner.  The attorney's charge is to put on the most vigorous defense possible.  In that regard, he was being neither selfish (not sure how this could ever apply) or dishonest in his remarks.

You are mad because someone who in your mind is clearly guilty, walked free so you want to blame the "idiots" who didn't do their job...which appears to be everybody.  To that end, I remind you of Blackstone's formulation:

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

* This is attributed to Blackstone, but the tenet itself can be traced back to the Old Testament.

[Noe]

No, you have to be a mindless sheep or they don't want you.  They purposely weed out those who DO understand.

You pretty much said everything that needs to be said about your own misguided but allowed warped opinion about the system we all live under in this society.  Nobody said it was perfect, but ask any judge, lawyer, congressman or statesman... the juror is the cornerstone of our system and without them, you do not have justice.  

You have Hudson Hawk, the neo Judge Roy Bean.

[HudsonHawk]

The defense attorney is the defendant's advocate.  In this case, the defendant told her attorney that Caylee drowned in a pool accident and was disposed of in a stupid, panicked manner.  The attorney's charge is to put on the most vigorous defense possible.  In that regard, he was being neither selfish (not sure how this could ever apply) or dishonest in his remarks.

That's the point.  He didnt' make that defense.  At all.

You are mad because someone who in your mind is clearly guilty, walked free so you want to blame the "idiots" who didn't do their job.

I am mad not because they acquitted her, but because the jury failed miserably at doing their job.

[Noe]

Lawyers didn't give me the right to call them dishonest. Rights are not granted by attorneys.  Sorry if that bursts your civic bubble.

Lawyers?  You really have a hard on for lawyers, don't you?  Bitter much?

[HudsonHawk]

You pretty much said everything that needs to be said about your own misguided but allowed warped opinion about the system we all live under in this society.  Nobody said it was perfect, but ask any judge, lawyer, congressman or statesman... the juror is the cornerstone of our system and without them, you do not have justice.  

You have Hudson Hawk, the neo Judge Roy Bean.

The fact that you and people like are willing to equivocate on honesty says all that needs to be said about our judicial system.

[HudsonHawk]

Lawyers? 

Yes, the subject of the conversation.

You really have a hard on for lawyers, don't you?  Bitter much?

No.

[Noe]

I am mad not because they acquitted her, but because the jury failed miserably at doing their job.

You're mad because from your comfy couch, you decided quilty and cannot see how anyone who was on that panel can disagree with you.  That last part is what irks you... always has, always will.  That's what makes you... well... you.  Now, throw out your next insult towards me to make you feel better.  That's what I'm here for... I'll always be here for you bitter man!

[HudsonHawk]

You're mad because from your comfy couch, you decided quilty and cannot see how anyone who was on that panel can disagree with you.  That last part is what irks you... always has, always will.  That's what makes you... well... you.  Now, throw out your next insult towards me to make you feel better.  That's what I'm here for... I'll always be here for you bitter man!

I'm not bitter.  And I can't understand it for you.

[Noe]

The fact that you and people like are willing to equivocate on honesty says all that needs to be said about our judicial system.

Hang 'em high Hudson!  The old west will never die!

[HudsonHawk]

Hang 'em high Hudson!  The old west will never die!

I'm gonna get a gavel for my SNS office.

[Limey]

Also from Juror #2:

“If they’d charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted or, you know, got a guilty sentence, but not for death. Not for first degree.”

"If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

These statements certainly indicate to me that at least Juror #2 didn't fully understand that a) there WERE lesser charges they could have convincted, and b) that the jury wasn't supposed to be deliberating punishment during this phase.

Did you just blow by the part where Juror #2 said that he thought it was manslaughter, voted to convict on manslaughter, before ultimately voting to acquit?  There were lesser charges; they were debated; she was acquitted on all but those for lying.  It is simply wrong for you to claim that they didn't know that there were lesser charges.  Simply.  Wrong.

[HudsonHawk]

Now I'm hungry.  Five Guys, Smashburger, or Cheeburger Cheeburger?

[Noe]

I'm not bitter.  And I can't understand it for you.

Really?  You really don't see how your bullshit stinks of "me right, everyone wrong?" attitudes instead of having a conversation and learning a little?  You're a closed mind, always have been, always will be.  Which is fine by me... I'm used to you being this way.   Stay golden and in your bitter little world.

[Noe]

I'm gonna get a gavel for my SNS office.

Next road trip, I'll present one to you... and I'll even take my cap off indoors to do so!

[HudsonHawk]

Did you just blow by the part where Juror #2 said that he thought it was manslaughter, voted to convict on manslaughter, before ultimately voting to acquit?  There were lesser charges; they were debated; she was acquitted on all but those for lying.  It is simply wrong for you to claim that they didn't know that there were lesser charges.  Simply.  Wrong.

I can only go by what she says.  Her comments clearly indicate that not everything was fully understood.  If her quotes are not reflective of their actual deliberation, then fine.  But that's what she said.

[HudsonHawk]

Really?  You really don't see how your bullshit stinks of "me right, everyone wrong?" attitudes instead of having a conversation and learning a little?  You're a closed mind, always have been, always will be.  Which is fine by me... I'm used to you being this way.   Stay golden and in your bitter little world.

You're the pot calling the kettle...."pot".

[Noe]

You're the pot calling the kettle...."pot".

Actually, it's not this thread alone that colors the conversation.  One time, you're all about the punishment fitting the crime (tasing a young man on the field is excessive) and the next time, you want due process set aside and you want to convict someone of murder when the prosecutor did not prove guilt according to a jury.  You're not THAT complex.  You're actually very easy to figure out.

And that is why I like you. 

[HudsonHawk]

Actually, it's not this thread alone that colors the conversation.  One time, you're all about the punishment fitting the crime (tasing a young man on the field is excessive) and the next time, you want due process set aside and you want to convict someone of murder when the prosecutor did not prove guilt according to a jury.  You're not THAT complex.  You're actually very easy to figure out.

And that is why I like you. 

After all of this, you still don't get the point. Keep banging your head against the same tree, over and over and over.  You haven't undestood a word of this exchange.

[Noe]

After all of this, you still don't get the point. Keep banging your head against the same tree, over and over and over.  You haven't undestood a word of this exchange.

Thank you.  I understand plenty and of course I understand you.  That is all I need. 

[HudsonHawk]

Thank you.  I understand plenty and of course I understand you.  That is all I need. 

So you never answered my question about where I should eat lunch.

[Noe]

So you never answered my question about where I should eat lunch.

How's your health? 

[HudsonHawk]

How's your health? 

Terrible.  I'm old and my knees hurt.

[Limey]

I can only go by what she says.  Her comments clearly indicate that not everything was fully understood.  If her quotes are not reflective of their actual deliberation, then fine.  But that's what she said.

He (Juror #2 was male) said that they debated the lesser charges.  You claim he means that they didn't know there were lesser charges.

If you are referring to Juror #3 - the only other juror to have made any public statements - then you are simply confusing the two.  Juror #3 decried the lack of evidence, stating that she did not think that the prosecution had even proved that Caylee had been killed.  The three (not-for-lying) charges against Anthony were:

• First-degree murder
• Aggravated child abuse
• Aggravated manslaughter of a child

If the prosectution did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Caylee had been killed, i.e. had not died accidentally, then the charges to do with Caylee's death evaporate, because the underlying crime does not exist.

[Noe]

Terrible.  I'm old and my knees hurt.

Diabetes?  Cholesterol? Blood pressure?  Getting enough sleep?  Plenty of exercise?  If it's all good, then Fat Burger.  If not, then Soup and Salad.

[Noe]

He (Juror #2 was male) said that they debated the lesser charges.  You claim he means that they didn't know there were lesser charges.

If you are referring to Juror #3 - the only other juror to have made any public statements - then you are simply confusing the two.  Juror #3 decried the lack of evidence, stating that she did not think that the prosecution had even proved that Caylee had been killed.  The three (not-for-lying) charges against Anthony were:

• First-degree murder
  Aggravated child abuse
  Aggravated manslaughter of a child
  

If the prosectution did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Caylee had been killed, i.e. had not died accidentally, then the charges to do with Caylee's death evaporate, because the underlying crime does not exist.

Wanna go to lunch?  Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding maybe?  Maybe mix in a pint or two?

[HudsonHawk]

If you are referring to Juror #3 - the only other juror to have made any public statements - then you are simply confusing the two. 

I'm referring to Jennifer Ford, whichever juror she was.  I thought she was Juror #2, but maybe it was #3.

[Noe]

I'm referring to Jennifer Ford, whichever juror she was.  I thought she was Juror #2, but maybe it was #3.

Juror #2 was the last hold out for guilt.

[BudGirl]

So you never answered my question about where I should eat lunch.

Lankford's

[HudsonHawk]

If the prosectution did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Caylee had been killed, i.e. had not died accidentally, then the charges to do with Caylee's death evaporate, because the underlying crime does not exist.

If Caylee had not died as a result of the actions of someone else, then you must believe that she either a) died naturally, or b) killed herself (unless you're going to argue that she's not dead).  I simply don't see how a or b are a reasonable scenario.

[Limey]

I'm referring to Jennifer Ford, whichever juror she was.  I thought she was Juror #2, but maybe it was #3.

She was #3.  To my knowledge, she never claimed that she would've convicted on lesser charges.

FWIW, I think that Juror #2 is talking about disposal of the body and failure to report the death of a child* as "lesser charges" (although I admit that I am extrapolating here).  It makes sense to me as they had aggravated manslaughter and child abuse as options too.  "Lesser charges", therefore, must be lesser than those.

* Not a crime in Florida.

[Limey]

If Caylee had not died as a result of the actions of someone else, then you must believe that she either a) died naturally, or b) killed herself (unless you're going to argue that she's not dead).  I simply don't see how a or b are a reasonable scenario.

Yesterday, a man died at a baseball stadium catching a foul ball.  That does not fit your (a) or (b) above.  Your field of vision here is way too narrow and arbitrary.

[Clark in Denver]

I think there is one thing everyone is missing:

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

[Lurch]

Dammit! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!

[HudsonHawk]

She was #3.  To my knowledge, she never claimed that she would've convicted on lesser charges

Did you not read the quote I posted?

[HudsonHawk]

Yesterday, a man died at a baseball stadium catching a foul ball.  That does not fit your (a) or (b) above.  Your field of vision here is way too narrow and arbitrary.

Caylee Anthony was not a grown man. She was two years old. Do you really expect her to be responsible for herself the way you expect a grown man to be?

[MusicMan]

Caylee Anthony was not a grown man. She was two years old. Do you really expect her to be responsible for herself the way you expect a grown man to be?

The point, I think, is that accidental/non-criminal deaths are possible.

[HudsonHawk]

The point, I think, is that accidental/non-criminal deaths are possible.

My point is that someone is responible for a two year old (typically the parent)  Unless she was struck by lightning in her bed, there was, at a minimum, negligence on the part of someone.

[Limey]

The point, I think, is that accidental/non-criminal deaths are possible.

This.

[MusicMan]

My point is that someone is responible for a two year old (typically the parent)  Unless she was struck by lightning in her bed, there was, at a minimum, negligence on the part of someone.

HH, I've known parents who have lost their 2-year old to drowning in the backyard pool.  I don't believe for a nanosecond that's what happened to Caylee - but if it was, it should not be criminalized, simply mourned.

[HudsonHawk]

HH, I've known parents who have lost their 2-year old to drowning in the backyard pool.  I don't believe for a nanosecond that's what happened to Caylee - but if it was, it should not be criminalized, simply mourned.

It very well may be criminalized. The death doesn't have to be intentional for it to a result of a criminal act. And do you think that throwing the child into a garbage bag and tissing it into the woods is a reasonable way to mourn?

[MusicMan]

It very well may be criminalized. The death doesn't have to be intentional for it to a result of a criminal act.

I'm sorry, I thought you were actually debating merits of the judicial system.  I didn't realize you had gone Judge Dredd on us.

[Limey]

My point is that someone is responible for a two year old (typically the parent)  Unless she was struck by lightning in her bed, there was, at a minimum, negligence on the part of someone.

The aggravated manslaughter charge addressed this (check the link I included earlier).  They charged Casey with (1) killing her daughter; (2) abusing her daughter; and (3) negligently allowing her daughter to die.  The jury deliberated on all three and came back with three acquittals.  It pisses me off too, but that doesn't mean that the jury "failed".

Meanwhile, JonBenét Ramsey's killer remains at large.  Her parents were hounded by the press and presumed guilty pretty much across the board in the media and the general public.  In 2008, DNA evidence exonerated the Ramseys, 2 years after Patsy, mother and presumed rage-killer of JonBenét, had died.

[Limey]

I'm sorry, I thought you were actually debating merits of the judicial system.  I didn't realize you had gone Judge Dredd on us.

You must still be on page 2 of this thread.

[Limey]

It very well may be criminalized. The death doesn't have to be intentional for it to a result of a criminal act. And do you think that throwing the child into a garbage bag and tissing it into the woods is a reasonable way to mourn?

Incorrect mourning, or even tossing the body in a bag into the woods, were not crimes with which Casey was charged.

[MusicMan]

And do you think that throwing the child into a garbage bag and tissing it into the woods is a reasonable way to mourn?

HH, I've known parents who have lost their 2-year old to drowning in the backyard pool.  I don't believe for a nanosecond that's what happened to Caylee - but if it was, it should not be criminalized, simply mourned.

[HudsonHawk]

The aggravated manslaughter charge addressed this (check the link I included earlier).  They charged Casey with (1) killing her daughter; (2) abusing her daughter; and (3) negligently allowing her daughter to die.  The jury deliberated on all three and came back with three acquittals.  It pisses me off too, but that doesn't mean that the jury failed.

I think they did. They got into that room and suddenly started playing attorney positing theories that were not based on the evidence presented to them.  Reasonable doubt must be a product and conclusion of the evidence, and does not mean "possible".  They manufactured doubt from speculation or what they thought was possible, which is precisely what the law instructs them not to do. They failed.

[HudsonHawk]

Incorrect mourning, or even tossing the body in a bag into the woods, were not crimes with which Casey was charged.

But it's evidence that leads you to a conclusion. What's the reasonable common sense conclusion you draw from Casey Anthony's behavior?

[Bench]

I think they did. They got into that room and suddenly started playing attorney positing theories that were not based on the evidence presented to them.  Reasonable doubt must be a product and conclusion of the evidence, and does not mean "possible".  They manufactured doubt from speculation or what they thought was possible, which is precisely what the law instructs them not to do. They failed.

I'm starting to like that duct tape idea.

[Limey]

I think they did. They got into that room and suddenly started playing attorney positing theories that were not based on the evidence presented to them.  Reasonable doubt must be a product and conclusion of the evidence, and does not mean "possible".  They manufactured doubt from speculation or what they thought was possible, which is precisely what the law instructs them not to do. They failed.

Well, let's just assume that you are correct (even though I've disagreed with you on this point for 13 pages now).  Those theories could have taken root only because there was not enough evidence to show that the prosecution's theory on what happened, actually happened.

Meanwhile, both of the jurors who have spoken out said that - as painful a conclusion as it was - there was not enough evidence to convict.  The quotes are here in this very thread.  You conveniently ignore these parts of their statements when you set off on your agenda-driven interpretations of what you think they meant.

[Limey]

But it's evidence that leads you to a conclusion. What's the reasonable common sense conclusion you draw from Casey Anthony's behavior?

That she's a cunt.  Also, not a crime.

[Noe]

I'm starting to like that duct tape idea.

This whole idea of circumstantial evidence in felony trials is good enough is growing on me too.

[Jacksonian]

Those theories could have taken root only because there was not enough evidence to show that the prosecution's theory on what happened, actually happened.

Have all the jurors spoken?  It's possible that one or more of the jurors never had an intention to convict.  I served as foreman on a jury in a 3rd strike DUI case where I am convinced two of the jurors were not going to vote guilty even before the trial started.  I firmly believe neither could stand the thought of sending her to prison.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm starting to like that duct tape idea.

Silence is golden...duct tape is silver.

[Limey]

Have all the jurors spoken?  It's possible that one or more of the jurors never had an intention to convict.  I served as foreman on a jury in a 3rd strike DUI case where I am convinced two of the jurors were not going to vote guilty even before the trial started.  I firmly believe neither could stand the thought of sending her to prison.

No other jurors (not counting #14, because he wasn't in the room) have said anything yet.

As to the thought that someone on the jury did not wanting to convict, you know this is Casey Anthony we're talking about, right?

[Ebby Calvin]

I think they did. They got into that room and suddenly started playing attorney positing theories that were not based on the evidence presented to them.  Reasonable doubt must be a product and conclusion of the evidence, and does not mean "possible".  They manufactured doubt from speculation or what they thought was possible, which is precisely what the law instructs them not to do. They failed.

From the quotes I've read here, the jury found that there was no overwhelming evidence that precluded them from acquitting her of the charges levied against her.  That the defense succeeded in planting that seed of doubt does not mean the jurors failed - it means the prosecution did.

Whatever tactics the defense used, as long as the prosecution didn't object or prove otherwise, are fair game.  They bluffed.  They won.

[HudsonHawk]

Well, let's just assume that you are correct (even though I've disagreed with you on this point for 13 pages now).  Those theories could have taken root only because there was not enough evidence to show that the prosecution's theory on what happened, actually happened.

There shouldn't be any "theories", only evidence. That's my point. If the jury thinks the evidence presented to them reasonably leads them to conflicting conclusuions then fine, that's reasonable doubt. But I think they went looking for possibilities, and that's expressly what they're NOT supposed to do.

Meanwhile, both of the jurors who have spoken out said that - as painful a conclusion as it was - there was not enough evidence to convict.  The quotes are here in this very thread.  You conveniently ignore these parts of their statements when you set off on your agenda-driven interpretations of what you think they meant.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm taking them at their word.

[HudsonHawk]

This whole idea of circumstantial evidence in felony trials is good enough is growing on me too.

Circumstantial evidence is often all there is. Fingerprints, DNA, ballistics, semen...all circumstantial evidence

[HudsonHawk]

Whatever tactics the defense used, as long as the prosecution didn't object or prove otherwise, are fair game. 

Again, that mY be standard practice, but I find it highly offensive.

[Bench]

This whole idea of circumstantial evidence in felony trials is good enough is growing on me too.

I'm reading Bill James' new book "Popular Crime" which is about famous murders, murderers and murder trials and the public reaction to them all.  It's a very interesting read if only because James is a good writer and this is a topic he's obsessed about his entire life, but I have yet to figure out just what he's trying to accomplish beyond pronouncing guilt (Sam Shephard) or innocence (Lizzy Borden) in famous historical cases.  

One of his arguments is that the classic Law & Order theory of "means, motive and opportunity" is one of the greatest logical fallacies in criminal law.  I think his example is something along the lines of being accused of eating a banana on a certain day.  He certainly has the means in his wallet to purchase the banana.  He enjoys eating bananas, and at any point he could have walked down the street to the store and purchased a banana.  But that in no way indicates that he actually did eat a banana that day.  It seems to me that's what most people think of when they talk about circumstantial evidence.

But DNA, fingerprints, really any forensic evidence is all circumstantial.  Being seen in a location near where the crime happened around when it happened is circumstantial.  And that evidence is usually much more reliable than the direct evidence of an eye-witness, which is notoriously unreliable evidence.  Circumstantial evidence is usually less likely to be the result of mistake or perjury.  I'd trust DNA and ballistics more than I would an eye-witness.  Especially one who is not familiar with the accused, or has reason to want the accused convicted.  Basically, circumstantial evidence has a critical place at the center of any trial, especially criminal.    

[HudsonHawk]

Have all the jurors spoken?  It's possible that one or more of the jurors never had an intention to convict.  I served as foreman on a jury in a 3rd strike DUI case where I am convinced two of the jurors were not going to vote guilty even before the trial started.  I firmly believe neither could stand the thought of sending her to prison.

Comments made by the one juror about punishment make you wonder the same thing with this bunch.

[Limey]

There shouldn't be any "theories", only evidence. That's my point. If the jury thinks the evidence presented to them reasonably leads them to conflicting conclusuions then fine, that's reasonable doubt. But I think they went looking for possibilities, and that's expressly what they're NOT supposed to do.

So, when the prosecution say that Caesy drugged Caylee with chloroform, suffocated her with duct tape, drove around with her body in the trunk for a few days and then dumped her in the woods behind the grandparents' house, they say this because they have someone who saw all this happen?  Or are they theorising based on duct tape on the body, a smelly trunk and a suspect who's a cunt?

I'm not ignoring them. I'm taking them at their word.

No you're not.  You are making extrapolations of what happened behind closed doors from other things they said, and putting little or no value on their clear assertions that they did not believe the evidence proved a crime or the perpetrator.

[Bench]

There shouldn't be any "theories", only evidence.

Again, you're turning the burden of proof on its head.  It's dishonest when the prosecution introduces meritless speculation based upon no evidence.  It's not dishonest if the the defense does it, it's merely holding the state to its burden.  The prosecution obviously did not meet their burden in this case, and it's not that hard to see why.   

[Limey]

Comments made by the one juror about punishment make you wonder the same thing with this bunch.

You do realise that you have just completely undermined everything you've said over the last 14 pages, right?

[HudsonHawk]

So, when the prosecution say that Caesy drugged Caylee with chloroform, suffocated her with duct tape, drove around with her body in the trunk for a few days and then dumped her in the woods behind the grandparents' house, they say this because they have someone who saw all this happen?  Or are they theorising based on duct tape on the body, a smelly trunk and a suspect who's a cunt?


No you're not.  You are making extrapolations of what happened behind closed doors from other things they said, and putting little or no value on their clear assertions that they did not believe the evidence proved a crime or the perpetrator.

I mean the jury shouldn't be theorizing.

[HudsonHawk]

You do realise that you have just completely undermined everything you've said over the last 14 pages, right?

I've done no such thing.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm reading Bill James' new book "Popular Crime" which is about famous murders, murderers and murder trials and the public reaction to them all.  

I'll have to read that. Mrs. Hawk may already have, she reads that kind of stuff all the time.

[Limey]

I've done no such thing.

You said that you took one snippet of one juror's public statements, and damned the whole jury with them.  Your argument is nothing to do with what is procedurally or factually correct; it's all about 12 people who disagree with you and therefore must be idiots.  QED.  There is no other possible explanation in your mind.

[Bench]

I'll have to read that. Mrs. Hawk may already have, she reads that kind of stuff all the time.

It just came out a few months ago.  It's an enjoyable read.

[HudsonHawk]

You said that you took one snippet of one juror's public statements, and damned the whole jury with them.  Your argument is nothing to do with what is procedurally or factually correct; it's all about 12 people who disagree with you and therefore must be idiots.  QED.  There is no other possible explanation in your mind.

You are completely, 100% wrong.

[Limey]

You are completely, 100% wrong.

Bingo!

[MusicMan]

I am glad to see that we've entered the "did not/did too" portion of the proceedings.

The "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" tactic is soon to follow.

[HudsonHawk]

It just came out a few months ago.  It's an enjoyable read.

The Mrs. is very analytical and methodical by nature. She loves reading about crime and detective work. I'm more of a big picture guy, but enjoy the human nature aspect.

[Lurch]

I am glad to see that we've entered the "did not/did too" portion of the proceedings.

The "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" tactic is soon to follow.

You know who else didnt like juries?  Hitler.

[Ebby Calvin]

You know who else didnt like juries?  Hitler.

Too soon.

[Limey]

Too soon.

Yet SFN.

[Bench]

The Mrs. is very analytical and methodical by nature. She loves reading about crime and detective work. I'm more of a big picture guy, but enjoy the human nature aspect.

Well then she'll love when Bill James creates a somewhat arbitrary mathematical system assigning points to various types of evidence and adding up guilt or innocence. 

[Limey]

Well then she'll love when Bill James creates a somewhat arbitrary mathematical system assigning points to various types of evidence and adding up guilt or innocence. 

Range Factor?

[HudsonHawk]

Range Factor?

Thought you were gonna tell me Casey Anthony's VORP.

[Bench]

Range Factor?

Murders Over Replacement Killer, not to be confused with Murders Involving Narcotics/Drownings/Yachts. 

[Limey]

Murders Over Replacement Real Killer, not to be confused with Murders Involving Narcotics/Drownings/Yachts.  

FIFY

[BizidyDizidy]

Range Factor?

DeRanged Factor

[Noe]

I'm reading Bill James' new book "Popular Crime" which is about famous murders, murderers and murder trials and the public reaction to them all.  It's a very interesting read if only because James is a good writer and this is a topic he's obsessed about his entire life, but I have yet to figure out just what he's trying to accomplish beyond pronouncing guilt (Sam Shephard) or innocence (Lizzy Borden) in famous historical cases.  

One of his arguments is that the classic Law & Order theory of "means, motive and opportunity" is one of the greatest logical fallacies in criminal law.  I think his example is something along the lines of being accused of eating a banana on a certain day.  He certainly has the means in his wallet to purchase the banana.  He enjoys eating bananas, and at any point he could have walked down the street to the store and purchased a banana.  But that in no way indicates that he actually did eat a banana that day.  It seems to me that's what most people think of when they talk about circumstantial evidence.

But DNA, fingerprints, really any forensic evidence is all circumstantial.  Being seen in a location near where the crime happened around when it happened is circumstantial.  And that evidence is usually much more reliable than the direct evidence of an eye-witness, which is notoriously unreliable evidence.  Circumstantial evidence is usually less likely to be the result of mistake or perjury.  I'd trust DNA and ballistics more than I would an eye-witness.  Especially one who is not familiar with the accused, or has reason to want the accused convicted.  Basically, circumstantial evidence has a critical place at the center of any trial, especially criminal.    

Yes, of course.  So the *reliability* of the evidence is an issue.  How reliable is DNA?  Tainted?  Has the DNA been handled by more than one party? Etc. You've mentioned eyewitness account and I remember a story that I was a part of.  I was walking down a business street and a man was chasing a truck with a lady in it.  He looked, to me, like he was trying to grab the keys from the moving car to stop this lady from leaving.  A business next door had several people run out to help this lady because, as they saw it, from their angle, the man was NOT reaching for the keys, he was striking the woman up side the head.

Two separate witnesses to the same scene, two different angles, two different stories.  As it turned out, the story I told police was proven to be accurate when they combined my account with the other evidence they had.  The man was trying to keep this woman from stealing his truck.  He was not assaulting her.

[Noe]

I am glad to see that we've entered the "did not/did too" portion of the proceedings.

The "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" tactic is soon to follow.

or lunch (dinner more likely). 

[Guinness]

or lunch (dinner more likely). 

Didn't you make promises earlier about roast beef, yorkies and pints? 

[Noe]

Well then she'll love when Bill James creates a somewhat arbitrary mathematical system assigning points to various types of evidence and adding up guilt or innocence.  

Is there a sliding scale when children are involved?  Seems to me that there is (and hence the hot button, made for tv reality show host, Joy Behar is going to have a field day, circus), as I was asked several weeks ago by a prosecutor "Do you believe children should be given *special* considerations when they are involved in a criminal case, in this case, the victim?"

Defense lawyer "Your honor, I object to that question!"

Judge "Counselors, please approach the bench"

(Me) "Damn, I wanted to answer that one too!"  (Wanted clarification on the question, meaning, are they asking me if credibility points are automatically given to children over adults?)

[Noe]

Didn't you make promises earlier about roast beef, yorkies and pints? 

No takers.  Had haggis instead!  Ewwwww....

[Noe]

You know who else didnt like juries?  Hitler.

Ironically, "the big lie" works with juries as well as without them!

[subnuclear]

How about the Jamie Leigh Jones trial which is happening right now?

I had no idea this case was so flimsy.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial?page=1

[Limey]

I had no idea this case was so flimsy.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial?page=1

Wow.  I now sincerely hope that she's making this all up, because that's a lot less concerning than to think that all this actually happened to her and she's getting no justice.

[Bench]

Wow.  I now sincerely hope that she's making this all up, because that's a lot less concerning than to think that all this actually happened to her and she's getting no justice.

Based upon the facts I've been told, I'm amazed the jury poured her out.  Especially on a preponderance standard.  I just watched the documentary Hot Coffee (highly recommended) which was made a year or two ago and featured this case.  She had to have reconstructive surgery and the jury didn't believe she was raped?!  HH should have been on that jury. 

[Andyzipp]

Based upon the facts I've been told, I'm amazed the jury poured her out.  Especially on a preponderance standard.  I just watched the documentary Hot Coffee (highly recommended) which was made a year or two ago and featured this case.  She had to have reconstructive surgery and the jury didn't believe she was raped?!  HH should have been on that jury. 

How is Hot Coffee highly recommended?  You enjoy propaganda?

[Bench]

How is Hot Coffee highly recommended?  You enjoy propaganda?

I enjoy having a job.

[Andyzipp]

I enjoy having a job.

I have no dog in this hunt, but that "documentary" was remarkably slanted, at least in my limited world view.

[Bench]

I have no dog in this hunt, but that "documentary" was remarkably slanted, at least in my limited world view.

"Tort/lawsuit reform is a horrible evil lie and people do not fully appreciate the consequences."  I agree with that message.

[Andyzipp]

"Tort/lawsuit reform is a horrible evil lie and people do not fully appreciate the consequences."  I agree with that message.

Perhaps I got hung up on the individual examples they were using to get to that point.  I went and did some reading after watching the documentary, and found this blog on Forbes, which is probably slanted the other way.

http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/

[subnuclear]

"Tort/lawsuit reform is a horrible evil lie and people do not fully appreciate the consequences."  I agree with that message.

Are there many lawyers who are for tort reform?

[Bench]

Perhaps I got hung up on the individual examples they were using to get to that point.  I went and did some reading after watching the documentary, and found this blog on Forbes, which is probably slanted the other way.

http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/

That article has more misdirection in it than the movie itself.  The most heartbreaking story was the couple in Nebraska whose economic damages were capped at 20% of what the jury awarded and the burden to provide care for the child was shifted from the actual wrongdoers to the tax paying citizens.  I cannot imagine how anybody can spin that as a good thing and neither does that article as it blows right past that to defend caps on non-economic damages.  The author did the same thing with the arbitration provision - ignored what actually happened to instead claim that's not how it usually happens.  But the judicial system is based upon addressing what actually happened to individuals.  That's why blanket policies to "protect" big businesses are harmful.  The judicial system is there to both address wrongs and also prevent wrongs. 

[Bench]

Are there many lawyers who are for tort reform?

You would be amazed.  I guess they don't have student loans.

[Mr. Happy]

You would be amazed.  I guess they don't have student loans.

Tort reform is essential to the saving of the Republic. Ambulance chasers are the bain of our existence as a nation. I am very much in favor of it, together with adoption of the English Rule for costs.

[Bench]

Tort reform is essential to the saving of the Republic. Ambulance chasers are the bain of our existence as a nation. I am very much in favor of it, together with adoption of the English Rule for costs.

If I didn't know better I would compliment your sarcasm.

[Mr. Happy]

If I didn't know better I would compliment your sarcasm.

You would be correct. I am a proud and unyielding conservative. I doubt we agree on anything.

[chuck]

Why would conservative principles naturally lead one to support tort reform?

[Lurch]

Why would conservative principles naturally lead one to support tort reform?

Pro business

[Bench]

Why would conservative principles naturally lead one to support tort reform?

For the same reason that being responsible somehow means welching on debts. 

[chuck]

For the same reason that being responsible somehow means welching on debts. 

I'm serious. Foundational elements of conservatism include individual liberties and rights of the states. Tort reform would be a direct repudiation of these tenets. Is being 'pro-business,' whatever that means, worth betraying fundamental philosophical convictions?

[Lurch]

I'm serious. Foundational elements of conservatism include individual liberties and rights of the states. Tort reform would be a direct repudiation of these tenets. Is being 'pro-business,' whatever that means, worth betraying fundamental philosophical convictions?

It is when one finances the other

[Mr. Happy]

I'm serious. Foundational elements of conservatism include individual liberties and rights of the states. Tort reform would be a direct repudiation of these tenets. Is being 'pro-business,' whatever that means, worth betraying fundamental philosophical convictions?

In my almost 20 years of practice, part of which as a partner in a defense firm, I came to realize that the lengths to which some spurious plaintiffs will go to not have to work for a living was staggering. I believe that the country has way too many laws and regulations and that these laws do nothing but erode our liberties. Tort laws erode our freedom of choice. Consider the number of companies that simply decided to leave a market or went out of business because of liability concerns. Look at the exposure of baseball teams for foul ball injuries. Whatever happened to assumption of the risk, which I also believe in. Furthermore, I am opposed to asset protection as I believe that we all ought to be responsible for our own actions.

I also believe that insurance companies also participate in this lawsuit game. That's usually where I part company with defense lawyers.

This doesn't mean that I believe that all plaintiffs are bad. There are in fact legitimate tort injuries that require redress. 

[MusicMan]

Well, Roger Clemens' trial starts tomorrow...

You know you're in deep shit when your defense is "so what if he lied?  Congress shouldn't have asked him."

[Bench]

You know you're in deep shit when your defense is "so what if he lied?  Congress shouldn't have asked him."

Congress also shouldn't have made Clemens insist on attending the hearing after they told him the day before that they would cancel it if he wanted to.  That's entrapment!

From the sounds of things, Rusty has been on his game so far. 

[Bench]

Furthermore, I am opposed to asset protection as I believe that we all ought to be responsible for our own actions.

Is this like Burt Reynolds in Deliverance who argued that he didn't believe in insurance because it strips objects of their inherent value by making them replaceable? 

[Bench]

You know you're in deep shit when your defense is "so what if he lied?  Congress shouldn't have asked him."

From the defense's opening:  “The evidence will show that Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court…for denying publicly allegations in a private report,” Hardin said. “And when he said publicly, ‘I did not to it,’ Congress called him in and dared him to say what they knew he was going to say under oath, and then charged him with perjury when he said it.”

[strosrays]

From the defense's opening:  “The evidence will show that Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court…for denying publicly allegations in a private report,” Hardin said. “And when he said publicly, ‘I did not to it,’ Congress called him in and dared him to say what they knew he was going to say under oath, and then charged him with perjury when he said it.”

He lied, but since they knew he was going to lie ahead of time, he is absolved from the consequences?  I dis-remember this.

[HudsonHawk]

From the defense's opening:  “The evidence will show that Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court…for denying publicly allegations in a private report,” Hardin said. “And when he said publicly, ‘I did not to it,’ Congress called him in and dared him to say what they knew he was going to say under oath, and then charged him with perjury when he said it.”

In other words, Congress played on his massive ego to trick him into perjuring himself?

[austro]

In other words, Congress played on his massive ego to trick him into perjuring himself?

Aha! So it's entrapment!

[JimR]

From the defense's opening:  “The evidence will show that Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court…for denying publicly allegations in a private report,” Hardin said. “And when he said publicly, ‘I did not to it,’ Congress called him in and dared him to say what they knew he was going to say under oath, and then charged him with perjury when he said it.”

did he REALLY say this?

[MusicMan]

did he REALLY say this?

Unless the Chron's standards have fallen to Murdoch levels.

[OregonStrosFan]

From the defense's opening:  “The evidence will show that Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court…for denying publicly allegations in a private report,” Hardin said. “And when he said publicly, ‘I did not to it,’ Congress called him in and dared him to say what they knew he was going to say under oath, and then charged him with perjury when he said it.”

Prosecution supposedly went front and center with the syringes as well. That the syringes are even being allowed in as evidence surprised me. I hadn't spent a ton of time really thinking about it but figured FRE 403 would've kept this evidence out (i.e. probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...).

[JimR]

Prosecution supposedly went front and center with the syringes as well. That the syringes are even being allowed in as evidence surprised me. I hadn't spent a ton of time really thinking about it but figured FRE 403 would've kept this evidence out (i.e. probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...).

"I OBJECT! that evidence is killing me!"

[Bench]

Prosecution supposedly went front and center with the syringes as well. That the syringes are even being allowed in as evidence surprised me. I hadn't spent a ton of time really thinking about it but figured FRE 403 would've kept this evidence out (i.e. probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...).

I think the syringes are about as probative as evidence could possibly be.  Now, challenging the reliability of that evidence (chain of custody, how do we know it wasn't tampered with, etc...) is Rusty's job on cross.  The syringes are certainly prejudicial (that's the entire point of evidence, as you know) but I don't see how they are unfairly so.  

[Bench]

did he REALLY say this?

The logic is truly mind-boggling. 

[Bench]

Unless the Chron's standards have fallen to Murdoch levels.

There is an ellipses in there, so who knows. 

[MusicMan]

"I OBJECT! that evidence is killing me!"

Fletcher: "I object!"
Judge: "On what grounds?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devestating to my case!"
Judge: "Overruled."
Fletcher: "Good call!"

[Waldo]

Fletcher: "I object!"
Judge: "On what grounds?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devestating to my case!"
Judge: "Overruled."
Fletcher: "Good call!"

Was just trying to find that scene on Youtube.

[HudsonHawk]

The logic is truly mind-boggling. 

No logic is required for the defense, they just have to throw shit against the wall and see if any of it sticks, correct?

[Bench]

No logic is required for the defense, they just have to throw shit against the wall and see if any of it sticks, correct?

Required and recommended are two different things.  Nothing is required for the defense. 

[Lurch]

"Man, this must be one of them contrapment things!"

"Kid's got a point."

[HudsonHawk]

Required and recommended are two different things.  Nothing is required for the defense. 

Seriously though...the defense isn't bound by the same rules of evidence as the prosecution?

[Bench]

Seriously though...the defense isn't bound by the same rules of evidence as the prosecution?

It's a different burden, not different rules.  The prosecution is required to produce evidence to show the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense is not required to produce any evidence at all but may merely rest on the argument that the prosecution's evidence does not get them there (that is the presumption of innocence).  The defense can sit back and try and poke holes in anything the prosecution produces, but is not required to produce any actual evidence to support that hole-poking.*  For evidence that the defense does introduce, it must conform with the Rules of Evidence, just like the prosecution's.  


*NTTAWWT.  

[HudsonHawk]

It's a different burden, not different rules.  The prosecution is required to produce evidence to show the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense is not required to produce any evidence at all but may merely rest on the argument that the prosecution's evidence does not get them there (that is the presumption of innocence).  The defense can sit back and try and poke holes in anything the prosecution produces, but is not required to produce any actual evidence to support that hole-poking.*  For evidence that the defense does introduce, it must conform with the Rules of Evidence, just like the prosecution's.  


*NTTAWWT.  

I understand that the defense is not *required* to produce anything.  I'm saying if they want to, are there not rules, or at least standards of conduct for the attorney, as to how that gets presented to the jury?  For example, say that Hardin said in his opening statement that McNamee was tied to organized crime, and it was really the Mafia who was framing Clemens, knowing full well that it was not true and that he was never going to mention it again, not in direct, not in cross, no witnesses to testify, no mention of it at all during the trial.  1) I still don't think it's proper for the jury to start debating whether or not the prosecution proved it wasn't the Mafia, and 2) I'm shocked that such a tactic by Hardin would be considered acceptable and not in violation of some trial rules, or at a minimum, in violation of some standard of professional conduct.

[JimR]

I understand that the defense is not *required* to produce anything.  I'm saying if they want to, are there not rules, or at least standards of conduct for the attorney, as to how that gets presented to the jury?  For example, say that Hardin said in his opening statement that McNamee was tied to organized crime, and it was really the Mafia who was framing Clemens, knowing full well that it was not true and that he was never going to mention it again, not in direct, not in cross, no witnesses to testify, no mention of it at all during the trial.  1) I still don't think it's proper for the jury to start debating whether or not the prosecution proved it wasn't the Mafia, and 2) I'm shocked that such a tactic by Hardin would be considered acceptable and not in violation of some trial rules, or at a minimum, in violation of some standard of professional conduct.

the opening statement is supposed to be "the evidence will show...."

[Clark in Denver]

Mistrial declared.

[HudsonHawk]

the opening statement is supposed to be "the evidence will show...."

Right.  If Hardin were to say "the evidence will show..." even if he knows there is no evidence and will not present any evidence, will not question witnesses about it, or anything.  He has no intention of ever mentioning it again.  I'm shocked that that's not somehow frowned upon.

[BatGirl]

Mistrial declared.

is anyone else surprised that's on the prosecution and not rusty?

[HudsonHawk]

is anyone else surprised that's on the prosecution and not rusty?

Not really.  The entire premise of the trial is about he said/she said.  I'm not surprised that either side tip toed over the line.

[MusicMan]

Mistrial declared.

I'm not lawyer, but it sounds like the prosecution should be completely embarrassed

[BatGirl]

Not really.  The entire premise of the trial is about he said/she said.  I'm not surprised that either side tip toed over the line.

sure
i just figured rusty's toe would tip first

[HudsonHawk]

sure
i just figured rusty's toe would tip first

Hardin is a bit of a Broadway producer, but from everything I hear, he's a pretty darn good trial lawyer. 

[Limey]

Countdown to Clemens blustering about this being a vindication of his innocence, a la Blago.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Hardin is a bit of a Broadway producer, but from everything I hear, he's a pretty darn good trial lawyer. 

Good and lucky.

[Ebby Calvin]

What a bunch of fucking idiots.

[Bench]

I'm not lawyer, but it sounds like the prosecution should be completely embarrassed

Damn right they should be.  Inexcusable fuckup.

[austro]

Damn right they should be.  Inexcusable fuckup.

Not a good few days for prosecution teams.

[geezerdonk]

Intentional misconduct by prosecution that causes a mistrial may give Clemens a double jeopardy claim.

[94CougarGrad]

Mistrial declared.

Jesus, they screwed the pooch THAT fast?!?!?

[94CougarGrad]

is anyone else surprised that's on the prosecution and not rusty?

I'm surprised that the prosecution messed up this quickly. I'm not surprised they messed up before Rusty did, however. Rusty isn't infallible, but I wasn't expecting him to make a mistake of this caliber.

[Bench]

Intentional misconduct by prosecution that causes a mistrial may give Clemens a double jeopardy claim.

I doubt it was intentional but it such a clear "you-absolutely-should-have-known-better-what-the-fuck-were-you-thinking?" screw up that it is difficult to explain. 

[Ebby Calvin]

I doubt it was intentional but it such a clear "you-absolutely-should-have-known-better-what-the-fuck-were-you-thinking?" screw up that it is difficult to explain. 

It sounds like the objectionable part wasn't the video itself, it was the portion of the video that included a comment about Pettitte's wife and what she knows.  I deal with this stuff regularly as a trial consultant - I wouldn't put it past the prosecution to have never watched the video clip in its entirety.  Heck they may have even told the editor to cut that part out and he forgot (or ran an old clip).  Either way, somebody's getting an earful today.

[JimR]

Intentional misconduct by prosecution that causes a mistrial may give Clemens a double jeopardy claim.

down, boy.

[JimR]

Damn right they should be.  Inexcusable fuckup.

video support guy may be looking for work now.

[Bench]

It sounds like the objectionable part wasn't the video itself, it was the portion of the video that included a comment about Pettitte's wife and what she knows.  I deal with this stuff regularly as a trial consultant - I wouldn't put it past the prosecution to have never watched the video clip in its entirety.  Heck they may have even told the editor to cut that part out and he forgot (or ran an old clip).  Either way, somebody's getting an earful today.

That's exactly what it was.  It was a video clip of a congressman describing an exhibit that the judge already declared inadmissible.  Somebody should have reviewed all the exhibits after limine points (or whatever the criminal equivalent is) were ruled on.  And for the prosecution not to have watched the video clip in its entirety, or to have not simply scanned the transcript, is very poor form.   

[Bench]

video support guy may be looking for work now.

Or whatever lower-ring lawyer whose job was to assemble the exhibits.

[JimR]

Or whatever lower-ring lawyer whose job was to assemble the exhibits.

it sounds like the video support guy played the wrong clip. this happened to us recently in a lawsuit against Allergan (Botox). we dodged the mistrial consequence, which is the only reason our IT guy is alive today.

[Bench]

it sounds like the video support guy played the wrong clip. this happened to us recently in a lawsuit against Allergan (Botox). we dodged the mistrial consequence, which is the only reason our IT guy is alive today.

What a nightmare. 

[Ebby Calvin]

it sounds like the video support guy played the wrong clip. this happened to us recently in a lawsuit against Allergan (Botox). we dodged the mistrial consequence, which is the only reason our IT guy is alive today.

Yep, happens pretty often.  But it's just as common for lawyers to not include tech support people in any limine discussions or consider the ramifications of what's being played.  The majority of attorneys I work with never even glance at a video before it gets played.  Sure, somebody will always proofread the transcript, but juries pay attention to body language as much as what they're hearing.

Not defending the tech or chastising lawyers - they're ALL accountable.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Or whatever lower-ring lawyer whose job was to assemble the exhibits.

The fuck-up and the dumbass who hired the fuck-up. Like how the defendant an the key witness started out.

[Bench]

it sounds like the video support guy played the wrong clip. this happened to us recently in a lawsuit against Allergan (Botox). we dodged the mistrial consequence, which is the only reason our IT guy is alive today.

The more I think about it, the harder it is to understand why that clip would be present at all.  It's clearly inadmissible even without the judge's specific ruling.  Our video guys don't just play clips from the original source, they put together a collage of what might actually be used.*  I can't imagine why any lawyer would tell the tech guy "let's keep that clip of somebody reading somebody else's statement on hand just in case."  

*Maybe Ebby can explain the technical process. 

[Bench]

Here's a good article explaining what happened.  I didn't know about this part:  prosecutors had already violated another of Judge Walton's rulings — referring in opening statements to HGH use by Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, and Mike Stanton

[OregonStrosFan]

Dunno, just as easily explained as pure arrogance.  Seen it, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that wasn't what was on display here as well.

[Ebby Calvin]

*Maybe Ebby can explain the technical process. 

What I usually see is this:  A week before pretrial hearings we start getting serious amounts of work.  Lots of video editing, graphics, exhibit treatments, etc.  Then, as motions get filed and granted, the product changes to accommodate the objections.  Sometimes it's days in advance, sometimes it's minutes before, sometimes it's right in the fucking middle.  Depends on the judge, mostly.

So for videos, by the time a clip gets played you'll have 1) the original, 2) first edits because it was too long, 3) second edits because it's still too long, 4) third edits because the lead attorney finally read the transcript, 5) fourth edits to exclude objectionable material and 6) fifth edits because it's still too long.  As a trial tech, you know this is going to happen, so you rename the old ones accordingly.  BENCH-01 becomes BENCH-OLD, then BENCH OLD2, etc.  That way you don't mistakenly call up the wrong clip but still maintain old edits in case you need them quickly.

More info than anybody cared to read, I know.  My guess?  Either 1) the lawyers forgot that was in the clip or 2) the video guy fucked up royally.  Option 1 gets a shitty reputation.  Option 2 gets you fired.

[Bench]

What I usually see is this:  A week before pretrial hearings we start getting serious amounts of work.  Lots of video editing, graphics, exhibit treatments, etc.  Then, as motions get filed and granted, the product changes to accommodate the objections.  Sometimes it's days in advance, sometimes it's minutes before, sometimes it's right in the fucking middle.  Depends on the judge, mostly.

So for videos, by the time a clip gets played you'll have 1) the original, 2) first edits because it was too long, 3) second edits because it's still too long, 4) third edits because the lead attorney finally read the transcript, 5) fourth edits to exclude objectionable material and 6) fifth edits because it's still too long.  As a trial tech, you know this is going to happen, so you rename the old ones accordingly.  BENCH-01 becomes BENCH-OLD, then BENCH OLD2, etc.  That way you don't mistakenly call up the wrong clip but still maintain old edits in case you need them quickly.

More info than anybody cared to read, I know.  My guess?  Either 1) the lawyers forgot that was in the clip or 2) the video guy fucked up royally.  Option 1 gets a shitty reputation.  Option 2 gets you fired.

Thanks.  I think you have to blame the lawyers on this one.  The clip never should have been designated in the first place - it's facially inadmissible even without the specific prior rulings.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Also, The Dugout is in fine form w/r/t the mistrial.

[MusicMan]

Also, The Dugout is in fine form w/r/t the mistrial.

I liegitimately LOL'd that one.

[Limey]

Also, The Dugout is in fine form w/r/t the mistrial.

The payoff is pretty sweet.

[chuck]

Also, The Dugout is in fine form w/r/t the mistrial.

Wait. Since when is 19 not legal?

[Bench]

Wait. Since when is 19 not legal?

And therein lies his problem with her.  

[austro]

And therein lies his problem with her. 

/Throws laptop at bench.

[chuck]

Tort reform is essential to the saving of the Republic. Ambulance chasers are the bain of our existence as a nation. I am very much in favor of it, together with adoption of the English Rule for costs.

I've seen the light, Hap. I'm with you on this one.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7653893.html

If $250k isn't enough to fit this dumbass with a glass eye, fuck him.

[Bench]

I've seen the light, Hap. I'm with you on this one.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7653893.html

If $250k isn't enough to fit this dumbass with a glass eye, fuck him.

The cap is absurd.  I'm in a case where a guy working at a tire store reamed a tire that was filled with some sort of flammable instant-foam-inflater and it exploded as he was holding it between his legs.  He spent three months in intensive care while being slowly hacked away.  Over the course of the three months, both legs were amputated, one arm was amputated, his testicles were amputed, and both of his eyes were removed.  He finally died after three months of that.  But according to our noble legislature, his pain and suffering = $250K.  At most.  What a system.

[chuck]

The cap is absurd.  I'm in a case where a guy working at a tire store reamed a tire that was filled with some sort of flammable instant-foam-inflater and it exploded as he was holding it between his legs.  He spent three months in intensive care while being slowly hacked away.  Over the course of the three months, both legs were amputated, one arm was amputated, his testicles were amputed, and both of his eyes were removed.  He finally died after three months of that.  But according to our noble legislature, his pain and suffering = $250K.  At most.  What a system.

You fucking ambulance chaser.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

There should be a floating cap. If you're suing Starbucks because your lip got burned by hot coffee, the cap should be the price of another cup a coffee. If you are suing the Housing Authority because a gas explosion killed a couple of family members and left you with 3rd degree burns over 40% of your body, and the HA had been notified on multiple occasions of the gas smell and potential leak, and there is inter-department e-mail evidence of the HA acknowledging the danger and neglecting to do anything about it, then the cap should be $100 million, give or take. I think the notion of tort reform is in a remote way, another erosion of free speech.

[94CougarGrad]

Also, The Dugout is in fine form w/r/t the mistrial.

That's some funnee stuff right there.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

I've seen the light, Hap. I'm with you on this one.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7653893.html

If $250k isn't enough to fit this dumbass with a glass eye, fuck him.

Almost as important: $250k isn't enough to put this Douche Valhalla out of bidness.

[Trey]

There should be a floating cap. If you're suing Starbucks because your lip got burned by hot coffee, the cap should be the price of another cup a coffee. If you are suing the Housing Authority because a gas explosion killed a couple of family members and left you with 3rd degree burns over 40% of your body, and the HA had been notified on multiple occasions of the gas smell and potential leak, and there is inter-department e-mail evidence of the HA acknowledging the danger and neglecting to do anything about it, then the cap should be $100 million, give or take. I think the notion of tort reform is in a remote way, another erosion of free speech.

While I'm nervous about wading into these types of arguments, as I'm mostly pulling it out of my ass...

Isn't the whole point of a trial to determine how much damages/emotional distress/etc. was caused?  To put it another way, if you aren't going to say "Burn no matter how minor/severe=$X", doesn't it makes sense to, you know, present evidence to some kind of non-biased, unaffected party, let's call them "judge and jury" and let them decide?

[JimR]

The cap is absurd.  I'm in a case where a guy working at a tire store reamed a tire that was filled with some sort of flammable instant-foam-inflater and it exploded as he was holding it between his legs.  He spent three months in intensive care while being slowly hacked away.  Over the course of the three months, both legs were amputated, one arm was amputated, his testicles were amputed, and both of his eyes were removed.  He finally died after three months of that.  But according to our noble legislature, his pain and suffering = $250K.  At most.  What a system.

your poor contingent fee.

[Bench]

While I'm nervous about wading into these types of arguments, as I'm mostly pulling it out of my ass...

Isn't the whole point of a trial to determine how much damages/emotional distress/etc. was caused?  To put it another way, if you aren't going to say "Burn no matter how minor/severe=$X", doesn't it makes sense to, you know, present evidence to some kind of non-biased, unaffected party, let's call them "judge and jury" and let them decide?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is horrified by your logic. 

[Bench]

your poor contingent fee.

The injustice knows no bounds. 

[JimR]

The injustice knows no bounds.  

believe me, i know. our lawyers tagged Botox for a jury verdict in Virginia that included $200 million in punitive dames. unfortunately, there is a cap....

tell your wives and SOs to avoid Botox like the plague. it is botulism, after all.

[Limey]

believe me, i know. our lawyers tagged Botox for a jury verdict in Virginia that included $200 million in punitive dames. unfortunately, there is a cap....

tell your wives and SOs to avoing Botox like the plague. it is botulism, after all.

"Avoing" is a delicious typo that brings to mind Super Mario leaping away from danger.

[austro]

"Avoing" is a delicious typo that brings to mind Super Mario leaping away from danger.

Or rebounding off of a Botox'ed forehead.

[MusicMan]

tell your wives and SOs to avoing Botox like the plague. it is botulism, after all.

Wait just a damn minute.  I'm NOT supposed to put deadly poison in my body?

[HudsonHawk]

tell your wives and SOs to avoing Botox like the plague. it is botulism, after all.

My wife wanted Botox until I explained that it was a powerfully lethal neurotoxin that worked by paralyzing your facial muscles.  If people knew what it was and what it did at the cellular level, most would be horrified.

[JimR]

"Avoing" is a delicious typo that brings to mind Super Mario leaping away from danger.

i corrected it.

[JimR]

My wife wanted Botox until I explained that it was a powerfully lethal neurotoxin that worked by paralyzing your facial muscles.  If people knew what it was and what it did at the cellular level, most would be horrified.

we have been suing over deaths and maiming and worse.

[BudGirl]

My wife wanted Botox until I explained that it was a powerfully lethal neurotoxin that worked by paralyzing your facial muscles.  If people knew what it was and what it did at the cellular level, most would be horrified.

some know and still want to do it.  i am surprised at which friends say they would do it.  i wouldn't. 

[austro]

we have been suing over deaths and maiming and worse.

What's the point of having regulatory commissions if they approve shit like this? On the one hand, many things in today's society are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand properly, so they rely on presumably up-to-speed commissions to protect them; I wouldn't want producers to be able to throw just anything out there and say "trust me, it's good". But on the other hand, if the commissions aren't going to do a good job (or worse, they're just lap dogs and rubber stamps for producers), I'd just as soon save the money and face the realization that there's nobody looking out for me but me.

[HudsonHawk]

What's the point of having regulatory commissions if they approve shit like this? On the one hand, many things in today's society are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand properly, so they rely on presumably up-to-speed commissions to protect them; I wouldn't want producers to be able to throw just anything out there and say "trust me, it's good". But on the other hand, if the commissions aren't going to do a good job (or worse, they're just lap dogs and rubber stamps for producers), I'd just as soon save the money and face the realization that there's nobody looking out for me but me.

[sarcasm]So you think the government should save you from yourself[/sarcasm]

[subnuclear]

I don't know what the particular problem with Botox is, but most the time you can't know what the side-effects are going to be unless you test it on a large human population. It might be that its 99.99% safe, but it seriously harms 0.01%.  Its hard to design trials, other than animal trials which are far from perfect, to catch that 0.01%. Its a problem inherent in medicine.

[Limey]

What's the point of having regulatory commissions if they approve shit like this? On the one hand, many things in today's society are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand properly, so they rely on presumably up-to-speed commissions to protect them; I wouldn't want producers to be able to throw just anything out there and say "trust me, it's good". But on the other hand, if the commissions aren't going to do a good job (or worse, they're just lap dogs and rubber stamps for producers), I'd just as soon save the money and face the realization that there's nobody looking out for me but me.

Ron Paul has a populist message, in that he's all about getting the government out of the way.  His libertarianism is a pretty pure strain, and he is consistent in his views (unlike his son, amongst others).  What people don't often focus on, however, is that Paul is all for disbanding the FDA, EPA and almost every other type of "A" that regulates...anything,   If Botox kills or maims people?  They (or their dependents) will sue and Botox will either fix itself or go out of business.  Bad water in your district?  Move.  Lead paint on children's toys from China?  Buy another brand (or your child is dead so problem solved).

The death, sickness and heartache that would result from life being regulated by market forces only, would not be appreciated by most of the population, IMHO.

[subnuclear]

Ron Paul has a populist message, in that he's all about getting the government out of the way.  His libertarianism is a pretty pure strain, and he is consistent in his views (unlike his son, amongst others).  What people don't often focus on, however, is that Paul is all for disbanding the FDA, EPA and almost every other type of "A" that regulates...anything,   If Botox kills or maims people?  They (or their dependents) will sue and Botox will either fix itself or go out of business.  Bad water in your district?  Move.  Lead paint on children's toys from China?  Buy another brand (or your child is dead so problem solved).

Botox was FDA approved, no?

[JimR]

What's the point of having regulatory commissions if they approve shit like this? On the one hand, many things in today's society are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand properly, so they rely on presumably up-to-speed commissions to protect them; I wouldn't want producers to be able to throw just anything out there and say "trust me, it's good". But on the other hand, if the commissions aren't going to do a good job (or worse, they're just lap dogs and rubber stamps for producers), I'd just as soon save the money and face the realization that there's nobody looking out for me but me.

wait a minute, Harvey. Botox is getting clobbered for off-label uses. the Justice Department tagged Allergan for a $600 million fine. the fault is the company's, not agencies'.

[JimR]

Botox was FDA approved, no?

for cosmetic purposes, yes.

[Guinness]

The death, sickness and heartache that would result from life being regulated by market forces only, would not be appreciated by most of the population, IMHO.

See Murdoch, Rupert

[JimR]

this must be National Jump To Conclusions Day. you boys are on a roll.

[HudsonHawk]

this must be National Jump To Conclusions Day. you boys are on a roll.

What good is evidence if you can't use to justify your conclusions?

[Limey]

Botox was FDA approved, no?

Of course it was.  But I think we can all see that - each time an industry scandal has broken - the regulatory authority charged with having our backs, hadn't.  The authorities may be flawed, but the principle behind them isn't.

[strosrays]

How long have the caps been in effect?  Do they apply in every civil cause?

I don't keep up with this stuff since I was in school, and interned at one of the "Big Three" firms in town.  I do know Toshiba settled a class action suit brought against them a decade or so ago for $2.1 billion dollars.  That is billion (not million).  I don't know how much Wayne Reaud and those guys hauled in, but there was obviously plenty enough for them to spread the wealth around.  It was amazing some of the guys running around town buying or building new $3 million homes after that deal - "ambulance chaser" would've been a step up for them.

One guy in particular who was in on the Toshiba windfall I remember kidnapped himself back when we were in school - he was low on funds at the time, and figured his parents - who were loaded - would pony up and then he could finance his spring break and what all else from the proceeds.  Boy, was he surprised when the fucking FBI showed up at his "hideout" in New Braunsfels a few days later.  What an ultramaroon.  He finally got his big payday in the Toshiba settlement though.  I don't know what part he played to earn it.  To be honest, I'd be surprised if he could tie his own shoes every morning.

But anyway, what the fuck kind of possible judgement would compel a Japanese-based multi-national to voluntarily pony up $2.1 bil?  Was this before damage award caps?  Or is it some other kind of case I have mixed up here?

[JimR]

state tort reform law determines caps. those kinds of verdicts led to tort reform.

[strosrays]

state tort reform law determines caps. those kinds of verdicts led to tort reform.

I think tort reform has had a serious negative effect on the overall economy in Jefferson County, not just on the PI firms.

[Mr. Happy]

By "tort reform," I didn't necessarily mean caps on damages. In my opinion, there should be no caps on actual damages. I do favor a cap on punitive damages because those are too speculative in my opinion. Another part of tort reform that I favor involves repeal of joint and several liability in favor of apportioning blame based upon percentages of fault.

[JimR]

By "tort reform," I didn't necessarily mean caps on damages. In my opinion, there should be no caps on actual damages. I do favor a cap on punitive damages because those are too speculative in my opinion. Another part of tort reform that I favor involves repeal of joint and several liability in favor of apportioning blame based upon percentages of fault.

if you could see how Allergan does business, you would remove the cap for it.

[strosrays]

state tort reform law determines caps. those kinds of verdicts led to tort reform.

This makes sense, thanks.

I am still a little curious . . . I'l research it myself when I get home . . . the Toshiba deal wasn't actually a verdict, but rather a settlement.  And if they agreed to settle for $2.1 billion, what the hell did they think an adverse verdict might be?  Was/is there some kind of rule of thumb formula for agreeing to a civil settlement in a class action?  Is there some percentage?  For example, and I am totally making this up, did someone on the Toshiba side say, "Let's see.  We could get hit for $10 billion in a trial, so divide by five, carry the zero . . . okay, lets offer $2.1 billion."

I am just curious how much they must have thought they were possibly liable for, for making and selling some shitty laptops, after all.  As far as I know they didn't kill anybody.

[Limey]

I am just curious how much they must have thought they were possibly liable for, for making and selling some shitty laptops, after all.  As far as I know they didn't kill anybody.

My shitty HP laptop regularly whips me up into a murderous rage.

[strosrays]

My shitty HP laptop regularly whips me up into a murderous rage.

The Toshibas would suddenly delete all your files, that was the main complaint.  People were really pissed off that all the music they'd downloaded over the years from Napster and the like would suddenly vaporize on them.

[Bench]

But anyway, what the fuck kind of possible judgement would compel a Japanese-based multi-national to voluntarily pony up $2.1 bil?  Was this before damage award caps?  Or is it some other kind of case I have mixed up here?

Toshiba sold millions of defective computers.  Those numbers add up pretty quickly.    

And this was a class action, not a tort, so caps on damages didn't come into play and that was also back in the day when people could actually successfully file class actions in Texas and the US.  The corporations have lobbied to make that a lot harder since then.

One guy in particular who was in on the Toshiba windfall I remember kidnapped himself back when we were in school - he was low on funds at the time, and figured his parents - who were loaded - would pony up and then he could finance his spring break and what all else from the proceeds.  Boy, was he surprised when the fucking FBI showed up at his "hideout" in New Braunsfels a few days later.  What an ultramaroon.  He finally got his big payday in the Toshiba settlement though.  I don't know what part he played to earn it.  To be honest, I'd be surprised if he could tie his own shoes every morning.

I heard about this when I was working in Beaumont, but I can't remember which lawyer it was. ETA:  I remember now.  I don't think Alto was in the Toshiba case, but he did create the Mobil workers comp cases.

[94CougarGrad]

Botox was FDA approved, no?

I still can't fathom that.

[austro]

I still can't fathom that.

Follow the money.

[strosrays]

Toshiba sold millions of defective computers.  Those numbers add up pretty quickly.    

And this was a class action, not a tort, so caps on damages didn't come into play and that was also back in the day when people could actually successfully file class actions in Texas and the US.  The corporations have lobbied to make that a lot harder since then.

I heard about this when I was working in Beaumont, but I can't remember which lawyer it was. ETA:  I remember now.  I don't think Alto was in the Toshiba case, but he did create the Mobil workers comp cases.

Yep, I got AW mixed up with another moron, er, attorney.

Hey, I remember distinctly having a conversation/exchange of some sort (more than likely on SnS somewhere) when you were here about meeting up for a drink or something, but it never came off.  I was left with the impression either you were a Reaud, Morgan & Quinn operative, or maybe you thought I was some sort of secret agent in the employ of Walter Umphrey.  Am I imagining things?

[Bench]

Yep, I got AW mixed up with another moron, er, attorney.

Hey, I remember distinctly having a conversation/exchange of some sort (more than likely on SnS somewhere) when you were here about meeting up for a drink or something, but it never came off.  I was left with the impression either you were a Reaud, Morgan & Quinn operative, or maybe you thought I was some sort of secret agent in the employ of Walter Umphrey.  Am I imagining things?

I recall something to that effect.  I was only on the beautiful mountain for one year and it was in the employ of neither Wayne nor Walter.  I sent you a pm.

[94CougarGrad]

Follow the money.

No, that part I got, but the whole injecting botulism into anything that isn't a biology experiment thing...

[Bench]

The Judge ruled today that double jeopardy did not attach in the bungled proceeding, and Clemens can be re-tried by the Feds.  The retrial is set for April 17.

[austro]

The Judge ruled today that double jeopardy did not attach in the bungled proceeding, and Clemens can be re-tried by the Feds.  The retrial is set for April 17.

I guess the lesson is that if you're going to fuck up, fuck up early in the trial.

[Lurch]

Necro-post...

In Italy, apparently their 8 person juries include 2 judges to guide deliberations.  Interesting.  Costly, but interesting.

[Limey]

Necro-post...

In Italy, apparently their 8 person juries include 2 judges to guide deliberations.  Interesting.  Costly, but interesting.

...aaaaaand she's out.  Seems the TV acquittal thing isn't just an American phenomenon.

[MusicMan]

...aaaaaand she's out.  Seems the TV acquittal thing isn't just an American phenomenon.

From what I understand of it, this is actually a very Italian phenomenon: first trial ALWAYS convicts, the appeal is really what's relevant.

[Limey]

From what I understand of it, this is actually a very Italian phenomenon: first trial ALWAYS convicts, the appeal is really what's relevant.

That's fucked up.

[Lurch]

That's fucked up.

Perhaps it serves as a similar function to our grand jury

[BizidyDizidy]

Perhaps it serves as a similar function to our grand jury

Has she been in jail for years now?

[austro]

Has she been in jail for years now?

Four.

[BizidyDizidy]

Four.

That's fucked up. Kind of cute too.

[Limey]

Four.

Her conviction of slander was upheld, but the maximum sentence for that is 3 years...

[Limey]

Apparently, it is possible to convict someone in a televised, celebratory murder trial.  Just as long as the victim is the celebratory and the accused was never heard of prior to the murder.

[EasTexAstro]

Apparently, it is possible to convict someone in a televised, celebratory murder trial.  Just as long as the victim is the celebratory and the accused was never heard of prior to the murder.

Too young soon?

[Bench]

Apparently, it is possible to convict someone in a televised, celebratory murder trial.  Just as long as the victim is the celebratory and the accused was never heard of prior to the murder.

It wasn't a murder trial.

[HudsonHawk]

It wasn't a murder trial.

Don't be goin' all legally and shit on us.

[BizidyDizidy]

Apparently he's going to spend all of 3 months in jail