Evidence, Juries and Verdicts

by Aoife

The country is in an uproar about the Casey Anthony verdict. A jury of her peers - that had to be imported because the local jury pool had been so tainted - found her not guilty of the crime she'd been accused of - the death of her toddler daughter. People were in the street screaming "OJ2" with tears streaming down their faces at the thought of this child's death going unavenged.

I'm going to be honest. I didn't follow the case once it went to trial. I'm one of those contrarians who, the minute she hears that everyone is obsessed with something or someone I go in the opposite direction. I was surprised that the case went to jury so soon but as I said I wasn't paying that much attention. A mother who went out to party after her child disappeared. A mother who got a tattoo? A mother who waited 31 days to report her child was missing? A mother who laughed when she was fingerprinted? Slam dunk for the prosecution right?

As it turns out the prosecution's case was more like LeBron James and the Miami Heat's march to the NBA Championships. The child's skeletal remains were found in a swamp. There was no DNA evidence to be found. Yes there was the smell of human decomposition in the trunk of Ms Anthony's car but the jury didn't think much of that. There were pictures of the young mother having big fun.

Before you start about the jurors being idiots let's talk about what the jurors responsibility is and the burden of proof that rests on the prosecution.

I've served as a juror on a murder trial. I've served as a juror on a drug possession trial. I've served as a juror on a gun possession trial. And each time the jury I was on found the defendant innocent, much to the consternation of the prosecutors.

I should say that I'm not a textbook, knee jerk bleeding heart kind of person. I put my opinions on hold when I step into a jury box. That is what the judge tells you during jury selection. As a juror you listen to what the prosecution presents as evidence and what argument the defense makes to give nuance to or counter that evidence. It also has to be remembered that the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the prosecution.

In all of the trials I sat on the prosecutors showed up with evidence that at best can be called shaky. In the murder case we were shown video of the accused confessing, saw the coat the murdered man was wearing showing the stab wounds in the back of the coat, the murdered man laying on the sidewalk showing not one ounce of blood on his abdomen. Yet the arresting officer proudly showed the tape of the alleged murderer saying he stabbed the man in the chest. The other two cases presented equally shaky evidence.

But it was hard evidence. In this case the prosecution had to present circumstantial evidence, evidence that seems to have pointed to Ms Anthony being guilty. But the jury saw it differently. I could go on about how the dumbing down of America has probably affected the ability of many Americans to get to Point B from Point A. I grew up with the expression "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck". That type of reasoning seems to have gone bye bye as people look to be led more than being able to reason for themselves. They want to be told what to think and feel not reach an independent conclusion. But that is a discussion for another time.

I was stunned that the jury came back so soon but when I did I knew that Ms Anthony would be acquitted and that the decision was unanimous. It's the nature of juries.

On the juries I sat on once you're in the room a vote is taken, straight up, guilty or not guilty. If there is a split the discussion starts. Fortunately all of the juries I've been on were made up of people who had respect for each other. The discussions got heated, but there were no smackdowns, verbal or physical.

If the vote is unanimous it comes down to accommodations, job pressures and personal preferences. Do we go right back in? Do we milk them for another day of free lunch and a paid day off from work. I've never been sequestered so I don't know how that dynamic works.

I think they voted, decided on not guilty across the board, and decided they needed a night to sleep on it, to make sure they could live with the consequences of their decision.

It doesn't look good that the jury cut and ran. It smells of book deals and television interviews. They have to go home to what will be hostile reactions from friends and neighbors. When the Sheriff of the Florida County where Ms Anthony lives has to go on the air and beg for calm I don't think that these folks will have an easy time of it. If you feel you reached the right decision stand up and explain why. The OJ jury did. It's the least you can do for little Caylee Anthony, may she rest in peace.