While many were surprised by the verdict in the Casey Anthony case yesterday, some things remained both predictable and consistent like Nancy Grace’s reaction to any defendant prevailing in a criminal case. Grace’s choleric persona was in full rage that the jury would deign to find the evidence insufficient to convict the woman who Grace had already convicted many times on her show. “Now, I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system and I do, believe me I do. I’ve struck over one-hundred juries. But I know one thing: As the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not guilty verdict. Somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.”
I have been a long critic (here and here) of Grace’s snarling, sensational approach to law and journalism — an embarrassment to both professions. Whether it is attacking the weather or pushing grieving mothers to suicide, Grace has been denounced as an unhinged bully who brought the same abusive tendencies from court to the camera. She is CNN’s Glenn Beck.
It was particularly interesting to hear her again cite her career as a prosecutor because she left that occupation while facing serious ethical charges for prosecutorial misconduct.
Grace last night however was almost speechless. Unfortunately, it did not last:
“The defense team is inside a bar having a champagne toast, right now. . . Now, you know what? I’m not a preacher and I’m not a rabbi, but there is something wrong with that ’cause Caylee is dead. And her body decomposed just fifteen houses away from where the Anthonys put their head on the pillow overnight. Everyday searching, searching for this little girl . . . “Now, I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system and I do, believe me I do. I’ve struck over one-hundred juries. But I know one thing: As the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not guilty verdict. Somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.”
She insists that “Tot mom’s lies seems to have worked.” That is what CNN now offers for legal analysis.
What is strange is the reaction of the media. Over at CBS, Jodie Chen actually broke down in reading the verdict. The fact is that many of us said that the evidence was pretty weak and circumstantial in the case, though most expected a conviction. That a jury was able to overcome the high emotive aspects of the case (fanned by the prosecution and people like Grace) is a testament to their independence.
Jonathan Turley
“Mike, believe what you want, but seems you did not read what I posted correctly.”
Bren,
In the interest of fairness I did reread your post and I did read it correctly the first time. I didn’t even comment on this little gem before but now I will.
“Now there is an investigation for witness tampering.. I heard that from the Sheriffs yesterday, so you can’t blame that on the talking heads!”
Make a statement and back it up by saying you heard it from the Sheriff’s that there’s an investigation in witness tampering. That has as much credibility as me saying I heard from Ashton that he felt she was innocent all along, but the Attorney General made him prosecute and when he didn’t win it forced him to resign. How do I know you know the Sheriff’s directly involved? now you can be damn sure I don’t know Mr. Ashton, but perhaps you get my point.
“From the very beginning when the 911 call from Cindy said that she had found her daughter but that her granddaughter was missing and had been gone for 31 days and that it smelled like the car had a damn dead body in it. I knew that, that baby was dead and by her mother!”
So all you’re saying is that you immediately made up your mind who was guilty and so saw everything else that came in, including speculation, as more proof you were right. You realize that by law you could have never sat on that jury.
“Now the foreman of the jury is saying that they think it was George due to the opening statement.”
See Bren this is your problem, the Jury foreman didn’t say they were suspicious of George because of Baez opening statement, they were suspicious of him because he acted suspiciously on the stand. They were also suspicious of him because of his phony suicide attempt and that suicide note was more like a self-serving statement for the record. Listen fully to the tape of what he really said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-jury-foreman-suspicions-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196&singlePage=true
http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/jury-foreman-on-casey-anthony-case-said-george-anthonys-body-language-turned-everyone-off/
That was quite different from your take on what he said. That is the problem here, you don’t understand what reasonable doubt is and so you don’t really understand our jury system. She was found “not guilty,” she wasn’t found “innocent”. The jury acted correctly although they felt that Casey was in some way involved, but the prosecution simply did not provide the evidence. They also stupidly “overcharged” her for Murder 1 to get a “death penalty” qualified jury that they believed would be more likely to convict.
The actions of all the Anthony family, but mainly Casey and George were suspicious and hard to believe. There was no proven cause of death because the police didn’t investigate Kronk’s July 911 call. There were so many inconsistencies in the prosecutions case and forensic evidence and the jury clearly saw it.
Do I think Casey Anthony was somehow involved? Damn right I do, but just because I think something doesn’t mean I could convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the law and thank God it isn’t. We have the best legal system in the world here. In France and Japan you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. is that the kind of justice you want here?
The jury did their duty and not only the regular twelve, but two of the alternates believed that the case was not proven. how dare you attack them for doing their civic duty properly and listening to the instructions.
“Now some of the Jurors come out with their BS. When they went to deliberate they were not to consider what Baez said in his opening statement that there was no evidence to any of it.”
None of the jurors talked about believing the incest story and that was what they were told to disregard from the opening statement. They didn’t believe George and Cindy because neither was believable. Now I’m sure you love this country just like I do, but man the way you’re talking about this trial and the jury gives me cause to think perhaps you’d prefer if we had a legal system more like Russia’s.
Mike, believe what you want, but seems you did not read what I posted correctly.
Bren,
Whether Casey Anthony did anything here was not the issue. The fact that you made up your mind based on news reports doesn’t make her guilty under the law, nor does it make the Jury wrong. They watched the actual cases presented and they did not feel it proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the law. They followed it despite your opinions, which were thrown out to you by a media obsessed with sensationalizing this case and playing upon the emotions of the public. The jury to were Floridians and so exposed to the same pre-trial publicity that you were. 14 of them saw it differently. This was a victory for legal justice over media justice. As far as Cayley’s law goes it will prove to be a bad law just as has every other law named for a victim that some publicity hungry politician has proposed to further their careers.
One more thing before I leave.. This is the same Cheney Mason that said in an interview before he joined the Defense team that she was guilty!
I guess that Mr. Respectable Cheney who was at the bar and flipped the people outside the bird.. is “Respectable”. What a crock!
Mr. Turley I have always had such respect for you, and it will still continue. I do have to say that my decision of how I feel about this case has nothing to do with what the media has said about this or that with this trial. From the very beginning when the 911 call from Cindy said that she had found her daughter but that her granddaughter was missing and had been gone for 31 days and that it smelled like the car had a damn dead body in it. I knew that, that baby was dead and by her mother! I live in Florida and we could look at everything that was released as it came out. So all the talking heads did not make the decision I did that Casey Anthony murdered little Caylee and and more and more came out.. it made this case stronger! Justice did not prevail this time. Now some of the Jurors come out with their BS. When they went to deliberate they were not to consider what Baez said in his opening statement that there was no evidence to any of it. Now the foreman of the jury is saying that they think it was George due to the opening statement. Something is not right with this at all! Now there is an investigation for witness tampering.. I heard that from the Sheriffs yesterday, so you can’t blame that on the talking heads! I love the Sunshine Law and so happy we have it. Hopefully soon we’ll also have Caylees Law enacted too!
Now I have a question. If there was a witnessed that was tampered with by the defense, can the verdict of not guilty be nulled and can there be a mistrial with not being considered “double jeopardy”?
thank you
Mike S.:
I don’t know the answer to your question. Jeff Ashton is a career prosecutor and I expect that Lawson Lamar would generally follow his recommendations. But there is no doubt that the feeling in the community from the beginning was that the child was murdered.
Good stuff Mike A all the way around.
Nancy Grace Angrily Defends Casey Anthony Coverage To O’Reilly
“Jeff Ashton is an excellent prosecutor with a very fine reputation, but I believe that he overcharged in this case.”
Mike A.,
Since you know the territory could it have been that the prosecution was forced to go for the death penalty because of pressure politically from above and so the team made the best of it?
Because I live in Orlando, I’ve listened to all of the hype over this case for three years. For what they’re worth, here are my observations:
1. The death of a child hits all of us hard, particularly those who have children. When it appears that the death may have been at the hands of the mother, public revulsion and anger can easily become the predominant emotions in the community, creating a lynch mob mentality. The histrionics of commentators such as Nancy Grace add to the intensity of that mentality. That is what happened in this case.
2. Jeff Ashton is an excellent prosecutor with a very fine reputation, but I believe that he overcharged in this case. A mountain of evidence without critical links to a defendant is simply a mountain of useless evidence. Had the state not pursued this as a capital case from the beginning, there may have been the possibility of a plea bargain and even a truthful explanation of what happened. Alternatively, the state could have waited until it was able to fill the holes in the case. After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder.
3. The jury verdict affirmed the importance of process in the justice system. I don’t believe that the jury misunderstood the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” The decision means that they understood it quite well. And I believe that most of the people in the street screaming for vengeance would have reached the same decision were they faced with the obligation to view the evidence in accordance with the law.
4. I have known Cheney Mason for many years and he is also a highly competent lawyer. However, I was very disappointed in his remarks following the reading of the verdict, and even more disappointed in his gesture toward the public during the post-acquittal celebration. I would have expected the defense team to return to Cheney’s office where they could celebrate in privacy. Respect for the death of a child and basic professionalism requires more than what was demonstrated.
also, if you ‘want’ justice for the ‘victim’…you shouldn’t be on the jury or the bench… to be in search of the truth is probably more healthy to the process…
” I would add on a personal note that if I as a juror believe that someone is
innocent until proven guilty and also want justice for the victim, am I not
prejudicing myself against the defendant and therby in effect denying him
or her due process?” ~Curt Sjostrand
1, July 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm
———————————————
That’s an intersting thought. Perhaps it is like many things…if you focus too much on the broad philosophical ideal, it becomes too ethereal to be real. It is absolutely necessary to pin down the tiny bits of evidentia which are already manifest and therefor already foundational to the beast, Justice, which is born the moment the crime occurs.
To begin with guilt and attempt to prove innocence seems to me to be the alternative to what you say, and I don’t think that serves justice as much as oppression…and would probably inspire fear over respect of the law which imho would be a very slippery slope indeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee……………………..
Would a bridge to Nancy Grace truly be a bridge to nowhere?
Strawberry Alice: You just kicked the shit out of an innocent man.
Little Bill Daggett: Innocent? Innocent of what?
But Buddha, could any bridge stand the strain of that baggage?
Maybe this one, though perhaps not:
Burn Nancy Grace? No, no! That’s so primitive.
Let’s build a bridge out her.
Merrell wrote:
“Has it occurred to anyone that she may very well be innocent?”
__________
She might very well be not guilty of murder; however, I would never use innocent in this case.
What is it that Nancy Grace, other media mongrels, and the crazed, witch-hunting fanatics outside the court house think that they know, that the prosecution did not factually find and legally present that would have led the jury to find Casey Anthony guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; possibly to a certainty?
It is presumptive and absurd to conclude that Nancy Grace and the like had a better understanding of the facts and the law than the 12 jurors who, no different than any other sampling of jurors, would come to a different legal conclusion than did the 12 jurors had they been in the jury box each and every day, listened to all representations within the guidelines of the law and the instructions of the judge, and then would come to a different conclusion.
Absent the system, though not perfect, we move back into the dark ages where we would have burned Casey Anthony, Nancy Grace, and the fanatics at the stake.
Has it occurred to anyone that she may very well be innocent?
The glory of our system is that we presume innocence beyond a reasonable doubt so that we do not randomly punish those who quite possibly might be innocent.