Here is today’s column on the Casey Anthony trial (the print copy runs next week). Anthony is to be released in a matter of days, though the original calculation of next Wednesday appears to be incorrect.
The anger over the acquittal of Casey Anthony in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee has left many angry and confused. And that’s an understatement. After all, Anthony had been convicted weeks earlier on countless cable shows, Internet sites, Facebook accounts and Twitter feeds. Not since the O.J. Simpson case nearly two decades ago has the nation diverged so greatly from a jury in the outcome of a case. The same anger was apparent as people demanded to know why the jury would allow this death to go unpunished. Of course, they were not tasked with guaranteeing punishment for a crime, but guaranteeing that only the guilty are punished. It is a distinction lost in today’s legal coverage where jurors are expected to complete the script written by commentators by supplying satisfying ends to sensational stories. Anthony had already been packaged and processed through the system as a slut, a nut, and most importantly a murderer. Everyone seemed to know except 12 people in the Orange County Courthouse in Florida.
Armchair juries
On CBS, anchor Julie Chen actually broke into tears reading the verdict while others denounced the jurors for letting a murderess walk for free. The one predictable moment came from HLN’s Nancy Grace, who was in her usual full rage and revulsion. Sputtering with anger, Grace told her audience that “Tot mom’s lies seem to have worked” and warned viewers that while “the defense sits by and has their champagne toast … somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.”
It is not surprising that Grace is the face of unrequited vengeance. She was hired by CNN (HLN is under the CNN umbrella) after a controversial stint as a Georgia prosecutor during which she was accused of repeated unethical acts, including what one court described as her “disregard of the notions of due process and fairness.” Grace recently settled a case after a mother committed suicide in 2001 after Grace all but accused Melinda Duckett, 21, of killing her own son. Later, Grace would tell viewers, “If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide.”
The fact is that the evidence against Anthony was highly circumstantial and questionable. There were certainly incriminating elements, such as Anthony’s lies to investigators and her bizarre claims that Caylee was kidnapped by a nanny named Zanny or possibly drowned. There was also expert testimony that Anthony’s car trunk showed high levels of chloroform, and an expert who testified that he found hair, including possible post-mortem hair that matched Caylee in the trunk.
It was certainly enough for a trial, but was it enough to convict a person and subject her potentially to the death penalty?
While many Americans learned about the case through ciphers like Grace and an army of bloggers who focused on Anthony’s love life and pictures of the adorable Caylee, the jurors were focusing on the evidence:
•There was no clear evidence of how the child died.
•There were no witnesses to the act.
•There was no clear evidence of a motive.
For every major circumstantial fact offered by the prosecution, the jurors had doubt as to whether it was true or whether it tied Anthony to the death. In the end, the only clear crime was lying to the police, the count on which Anthony was found guilty.
Old-school justice
This is precisely why we require jurors to be educated by the evidence as opposed to their neighbors. That was not always the case. In the 12th century, early jurors relied on “self-informing,” meaning they applied their own understanding of the facts as members of the community as opposed to hearing evidence: Think of a jury of 12 Nancy Graces.
Of course, the only problem with a trial based on proof is that it is often subject to doubts. Ironically, the most accepted system of justice was also the most abusive: trials by ordeal. Medieval courts relied entirely on God to pronounce the guilt of an accused. Defendants were drowned, burned, given poisoned bread, and subjected to other abuse to see a sign of divine judgment. Yet, trials by ordeal had one advantage: People accepted the results because one could not question the judgment of God.
Without God rendering the decision, we will always have those who find these decisions to be unacceptable and lash out at these jurors. Yet, studies have shown that lawyers and judges tend to overwhelmingly agree with juries in their decisions. Three leading studies looked at thousands of trials and found remarkable consistency with judges disagreeing with verdicts in only 5.5%, 5.6%, and 6.7% of cases. That is a remarkable success rate for any institution.
It would have been easy for the jurors to vent their anger and ignore their doubts, as do people like Grace. After all, these are citizens like those who watched on TV — citizens with the same feelings of anger and disgust over the murder of a child like Caylee. However, they take an oath to do justice. Grace may accuse them of tapping their feet to the Devil’s dance, but they were not there for the entertainment.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
July 8, 2011
call me when nancy grace’s head does this
I agree with Turley. Do not blame the jury. I do not think it was a matter of folks simply wanting to go home. Remember, the jury for the OJ case returned a verdict of not guilty after four hours. It was clear that in both cases the prosecution had not done its job. Perhaps juror #3 felt that the trial was a waste of time. I believe they wanted to do right by this child, but the State put on a shoddy case, like Marsha Clark did during the OJ trial. The jury did right in both cases.
How sad it is that little Caylee will never rest in peace because the judicial system failed her. There are no winners here. Whether she killed her or not, Casey will have to live with the fact that her daughter is dead and that she contributed to her daughter not receiving justice.
On another note, Mike asked the question in his blog should we care about this case? Of course we should. But the question is why do we care so much? There are thousands of Caylees out there and not just white Caylees. Cases involving girls of color never get this type of attention. Or cases involving boys (an exception maybe the Susan Smith tragedy). If anything, I think a race/gender analysis is in order here. Why is it that we continually fixate on the helpless white female? If anything, this case shows that this poor child was exploited in both life and death. She was cannibalized by an insatiable media feeding frenzy which used her to boost its ratings. Shame on Nancy Grace and everyone else who profited from her death in the guise of championing victim’s rights. The media circus can only be described as a perversion of the lowest order. It is shameful and beyond sick.
RIP baby girl. Maybe someday we will find out who did this to you.
Zari, having tape over ones mouth doesn’t mean they were killed that way.
Zari,
All of which were cases for the prosecution to make and they didn’t. A jury’s job in court is concise. The job of a jury is to impartially listen to the cases and see the evidence as both the prosecution and the defense presents it, not to make a case themselves based on a desired outcome or by “filling in the blanks” left by either side of the bar. That is what justice requires of them. In a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof rests with the state. There are various standards of proof that vary according to the nature of a crime. The appropriate standard of proof in murder cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If the prosecution fails to meet their burden of proof (as they did in this case) it is not the job of the jury to do it for them. That would be procedurally unjust. Was justice had for the victim in this case? No, probably not, but due process isn’t about justice for the victim. Justice for the victim is a secondary consideration; a byproduct of procedural due process. Due process is about a fair trial for the accused. A fair trail requires an impartial trier of fact (a disinterested in judge) and a verdict based on the arguments and evidence as heard by a jury of her peers and their decisions thereon.
Did the jury perform their task as defined by procedural due process requirements? Yes, they did. They heard both sides, saw the evidence as presented within that framework of argument and made a decision based upon the facts of the case as presented to reach a verdict in accordance with the law as explained to them by the judge. Did the judge perform his duty – to moderate the arguments, adjudicate admissibility of evidence and inform the jury of their legal options in deciding verdict? Yes, he did.
Just so as it is not the jury’s job to do the prosecutions job, it is also not the jury’s job to create reasonable doubt if the defense fails to do so (as they did in this case). Her defense attorney was terrible from a technical standpoint and is in fact probably going to face a disciplinary hearing for his actions in court. The judge in fact told him as much. He didn’t win the case.
The prosecution lost the case. They failed to present the facts of the case to the jury in such a way as to establish motive and that it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not that the facts and forensics do not indicate this. Many people think they do. It really is that the prosecution in the instant case did not frame their argument and evidence in such a way as to convince the jury of motive and murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury may in fact as people think she killed that little girl. But if they don’t think the prosecution left no reasonable doubt in their presentation they had a duty to justice not to convict, irregardless of their personal feelings. Had the prosecution presented a persuasive case meeting their burden of proof, I have no doubt the jury would have convicted Anthony, but it was most certainly not their job to do the prosecution’s job for them. I also think this is why many of the jurors were upset (aside from the inconveniences of jury duty); they felt she was guilty, but they knew the could not convict on the evidence as presented.
A Supreme Court Justice by the name of Learned Hand once compared the justice system to a “pale shadow of justice”. What he meant by that is that the justice system is imperfect. Justice for all involved is not always had. It is a system of frameworks designed to catch and prevent as many injustices as it can, but it cannot catch all of them. Technical errors. Failed arguments. Insufficient evidence. All kinds of things can and do go wrong due simply to the complexity of the system itself. That it is an imperfect system is secondary to the consideration that when it works, it works well to both prevent injustice and promote justice. In this case, the injustice of an unfair trial against the accused (where the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof) was avoided. In doing so, an injustice was had in that society does not get to punish someone for killing a defenseless little girl – a most heinous crime. As justice goes, it is a mixed verdict. As justice goes, it is imperfect. As the justice system goes though, it is proof that it works . . . albeit imperfectly.
@ Jonathan Turley: “There was no clear evidence of a motive.”
Again, I respectfully disagree. Her motive was plain for all to see: “Bella Vita” — which she lived for 31 days.
One of her main goals at the time was to be with her boyfriend, Tony, unencumbered by the responsibilities of “motherhood”. She was all about the boy and Caylee was always “in the way”. Tony made it clear he didn’t want Caylee or any child around. (Remember Susan Smith & Diane Downs?) Where did Casey take Caylee the night she left Tony’s in the middle of the night? Whatever she did worked for her and I believe she would have continued to use this method to control Caylee and keep her out of the way so she could live the “Bella Vita”. It was evident that having a life with Tony was her main goal at that time; the jury heard it via that collect call to the Hopespring residence she placed from the jail. Her only concern was getting Tony’s phone number.
@ Jonathan Turley: “There was no clear evidence of how the child died. There were no witnesses to the act.”
Again, I respectfully disagree. To repeat myself:
The baby had three pieces of duct tape wrapped around her mouth & head; she was wrapped in her Winnie-the-Pooh blanket, put into 2 trash bags & a laundry bag, & thrown into the swamp for 6 months, including a few months under water. Because the remains were so well-hidden, by the time they were found they were completely skeletonized. It was the hair matt still attached to the duct tape and bone scrapings for DNA that allowed the coroner to identify the remains.
So, no, there was no evidence that a murder took place. It is possible that the 2 year-old either committed suicide or suffered an accident after she wandered into the woods by herself one day.
@ Jonathan Turley: “However, [the jury] take an oath to do justice.”
Yes, they do, which is why I respectfully disagree with you, Prof. Turley.
For me, I do not think justice was served in this case because the jury did not do its sworn duty! They did not “deliberate”! The 5 hours they spent Monday afternoon included “housekeeping” decisions about electing a foreperson, having lunch & breaks, etc. The fact that they came to court Tuesday morning all dressed up and ready to travel stated loudly that the jurors were going home, they had made up their minds.
A not guilty verdict after real, conscientious deliberation — fine. But it seems obvious to me that the jurors had to have already decided not guilty the minute they walked into the jury room and were interested only in getting home and getting on with their own lives. In fact, just yesterday,
Juror #3 stated quite boldly in several of the interviews she has given that the jurors were angry that they had been kept in sequestration for so long, “under guard for 24 hours.”
I agree with Gene H.
I’ll have to jump on the “jury success/failed prosecution/weak defense” bandwagon.
Not much I can add that would not make this sound like even more of an echo chamber. I agree with everyone. Jury did its job; prosecutor did not. I think it was BiL that said the other day the acquittal was not due to the brilliance of Jose Baez but to the failures of the prosecution.
As I said then, the scary part is that Jose Baez is now the “go to” guy if you are charged with murder in Florida. I am sure he is a good man who is passionate about what he does, but he had a lot of unwitting help from the prosecutor. That will not happen in all his cases.
Frank,
Yep.
I strongly agree. The jury did their job. The prosecutors choose not to spend time educating the jury on direct vs. circumstantial evidence they would present. They choose do to indict on a Tampering With Physical Evidence felony count; choose not to indict under a conspiracy or complicity with others count; choose to push the death penalty count and not give more time to the lesser homicide counts that were available, etc. I don’t so much agree with the statement that the defense won, as much as the prosecutor lost, the case. The jury reached the right verdict when based on the fact that evidence was not produced to them to prove the government’s case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT by a vote of 12/12. They were not asked to return a verdict of INNONCENT OR GUILT; they were not given an alternative of NOT PROVEN; they were charged with only 2 choices; GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY BY EVIDENCE TO YOUR SATISFACTION BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT. The jury sysytem worked!
I did not watch one minute of this trial or the commentary on it. The only things I’ve read about it were on this blog. The accused will be under the microscope for the rest of her life. and how she chooses to live the time left to her will answer whatever questions anyone now has.
“The anger over the acquittal of Casey Anthony in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee has left many angry and confused.”
I am glad that Professor Turley is spreading some light about the jury system.
I have some ideas about why the OJ and Anthony cases have been pumped out by the media, but those ideas are not for the general public’s consumption.
Then again…how about some new blood on the corner….
mespo,
People that read the USA Today are probably better educated than the rest of the population….but can you imagine a link like that would do to the explosion of poster….you know occasionally we get a nut job or two here…ok, I am included in the description…but how many nuts would it take before the tree falls….
JT:
Out of the blue, my brother-in-law mentioned that he had read your piece in the USA Today and wondered if you had a blog. I told him about this site, but I wish USA Today would let you link the site address in your column. I noticed the GW site is linked up. Is linking here something you’d rather not do?
As I stated early on…when asked my feelings on this case…alls I could say was I did not have a feel that they had enough to prove guilt…and that she’d probably walk based upon what I have read…
I was worried that she had an attorney that was so inexperienced….and that she’s be found guilty of something. And that he had built up a pretty good record for appeal in the event of a conviction…..
So, as I close…I remember I read something some place, maybe here and still believe it to be true today… it goes something like this…words have killed more men than swords… I suppose it goes without saying…we will never know, how or why that child died that day. We may suspect who did it….but we will never know…for sure…
Precisely.
Amen. I hope the truth comes out someday.