What is the function of a criminal trial? That profound question has been raised by the recent acquittal of Casey Anthony and the crumbling of the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
"This case [is] about seeking justice for Caylee..." So argued the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder case. He was wrong, and the jury understood that. A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That's because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.
A criminal trial is neither a "whodunit" nor a "multiple choice test". It is not even a criminal "investigation" to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that this defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither "likely" nor "probable" satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result -- acquittal in such a case -- may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.
For thousands of years, western society has insisted that it is better for ten guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham's argument with God about the sinners of Sodom. Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were ten or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were ten righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged.
That is why a criminal trial is not "a search for truth." Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A civil trial, on the other hand, seeks justice for the victim. In such a case, the victim sues the alleged perpetrator and need only prove liability by a mere preponderance of the evidence. In other words if it is more likely than not that a defendant was the killer, he is found liable, though he cannot be found guilty on that lesser standard. That is why it was perfectly rational, though difficult for many to understand, for a civil jury to have found OJ Simpson liable to his alleged victim, after a criminal jury had found him not guilty of his murder. It is certainly possible that if the estate of Caylee Anthony were to sue to Casey Anthony civilly, a Florida jury might find liability.
Casey Anthony was not found "innocent" of her daughter's murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found "not guilty." And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict. This misunderstanding is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of tv shows about criminal cases. On television, and in the movies, crimes are always solved. Nothing is left uncertain. By the end, the viewer knows whodunit. In real life, on the other hand, many murders remain unsolved, and even some that are "solved" to the satisfaction of the police and prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. The Scottish verdict "not proven" reflects this reality more accurately than its American counterpart "not guilty."
Because many American murder cases, such as the Casey Anthony trial, are shown on television, they sometimes appear to the public as if they were reality television shows. There is great disappointment, therefore, when the result is a not guilty verdict. On the old Perry Mason show, the fictional defense lawyer would not only get his client acquitted but he would prove who actually committed the murder. Not so in real life.
The verdict in the Casey Anthony case reflected the lack of forensic evidence and heavy reliance on circumstantial inferences. There was no evidence of a cause of death, the time of death or the circumstances surrounding the actual death of this young girl. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred homicide. But a reasonable jury could also have rejected that conclusion, as this jury apparently did. There are hundreds of defendants now in prison, some even on death row, based on less persuasive evidence than was presented in this case.
Juries are not computers. They are composed of human beings who evaluate evidence differently. The prosecutors in this case did the best they could with the evidence they had, though I believe they made a serious mistake in charging Casey Anthony with capital murder and in overtrying the case by introducing questionable evidence such as that relating to the "smell of death." The defense also made mistakes, particularly by accusing Casey's father of sexually abusing her. That sounds like the kind of abuse excuse offered to justify a crime. But a criminal trial is not about who is the better lawyer. It is about the evidence and the evidence, in this case left a reasonable doubt in the mind of all of the jurors. The system worked in the Casey Anthony case.
It also seems to be working, if a bit late, in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case, where the issue is not whether the defendant did or did not rape the unnamed hotel worker, but whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a criminal trial. Based on the accuser's history of lying -- even about alleged rape -- the answer seems clear. That is why the charged will almost certainly be dismissed, following an earlier rush to judgment by the prosecutor, the media and the public. Would a dismissal be just or a truthful reflection of what actually happened? I don't know. What I do know is that it would be the legally correct result.
Rashad Robinson: Innocent, But Forced to Confess -- To Murder
I always enjoy your insights into legal matters.
From my perspective I have concern that juries are not given adequate instruction enabling them to reach appropriate conclusions on how to reach a decision, especially with regards to what constitutes evidence and what constitutes reasonable doubt.
If you were ever on a jury then I would expect you to make a very appropriate decision since the way these matters work would be familiar to you before you stepped into the room, but as far as I can tell, your typical juror has little opportunity to grapple with the distinction between what is a reasonable doubt versu an unreasonable doubt.\
In the Casey Anthony trial there were unreasonable doubts but I found no reasonable doubts that she was guilty and therefore I consider the decison of the jury to be the result of confusion instead of appropriate rational thought.
I don't believe in "justice for the victim". Harming the perpetrator does not really benefit the victim. There isn't a ghost hanging around, waiting for a new victim (in the case of an accused who isn't actually guilty) to take its place.
Being the victim of a crime, or even being made acutely aware of a crime, does tend to elicit the perverse desire for another similar act to bring the story to closure. But that's not justice. An innocent sacrifice will serve the narrative just as well as the perpetrator, or for that matter just as well as someone who was marginally involved.
The only punishment that truly fits a crime, any crime, would be to fully heal the perpetrator: to make them suffer the remorse that such healing necessarily entails. But we don't live in a world where that's normally possible. The best we can expect is a society under law, where private vengeance is replaced by the systematically limited actions of a legitimate authority.
That is the point of the whole exercise. And the criterion for conviction serves its purpose well.
As far as I know, there weren't any photos of Dorothy looking angelic.
In fact, that is a good movie to show a lot of things to litigants and I always recommend it to people to learn what courts are really like.
"There are hundreds of defendants now in prison, some even on death row, based on less persuasive evidence than was presented in this case."
Do you think Casey Anthony might have been convicted also, if this had not been a high profile case? She is fortunate that her defense team was able to afford expert witnesses. If they had not testified to refute the "evidence" presented by the prosecution, the jury would probably have believed the prosecution's case. If she had been represented by a public defender with a heavy caseload, she wouldn't have had expert witnesses testifying on her behalf, would she?
To me this trial was enlightening, because it showed how the deck is stacked against the defendant. The DA, prosecutors, law enforcement, the medical examiners office, local dog handlers, local detectives, so-called experts, and a judge who is a former prosecutor, all aligned themselves against one defendant. No wonder Orange County, FL has a 95% conviction rate.
I question whether the average defendant ever gets a fair trial.
My perception of the criminal justice system is this: It's a rigged game, not intended to be fair but to be perceived as such. The criminal process itself is intended to be punishment It's as one-sided as it can possibly be and still be kept below the rador of pubic perception. Corrupt? I don't believe that's the correct word. It is, however, overbearing, often unethical, and the courts have a frustrating habit of denying facts to arrive at a conclusion that disadvantages the defendant.
But if it's a highly publicized case then it's a whole different ball game. Now everythiing is in the public eye and the defendant has a much better chance. I think all trials should be televised.
After a while you can see why cynicism permeates the entire system.
Any one who has sat on a jury knows there is a heavy burden to pass judgment based only on the evidence presented, and that the burden of not convicting an innocent person is usually, and should always be present.
Society/politicians/prosecutors/cops need to constantly be reminded that in their hands lies the burden of making sure that the innocent are not convicted and punished for crimes not committed and are not punished with the cost of trials and the stigma of accusations and loss of privacy either.