By now, everyone has heard of the acquittal of Casey Anthony, the young mother accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. After the prosecution reversed its decision not to seek the death penalty in December 2008 to requesting the death penalty in April 2009, I was asked to join the Casey Anthony team, as my area of expertise is death penalty defense. For a year, I and my clinical students, as well as my investigator and mitigation specialist here at the Center for Justice in Capital Cases at DePaul College of Law, worked on this case. We filed many motions attacking the request for the death penalty, and I argued, among other things, that the State of Florida should not be allowed to request the death penalty when they cannot even identify cause of death of Casey's little girl. I was forced to leave the trial team when the trial court refused to cover the clinic costs for travel, despite having found Miss Anthony to be indigent. Nonetheless, I believed in my client then, and I believe in her now.
It is amazing that Miss Anthony got a fair trial, considering the fact that the trial judge granted nearly every request that the prosecution made, allowed untested "science" at their request, allowed them to go forward with a request for the death penalty, and got a biased, pro-death-penalty jury. Despite this, the jury got it right. They voted on the evidence -- on the fact that there was no cause of death, no showing of a homicidal means of death, let alone who actually did it.
What is troubling is the public's fascination with this case, the need to make Casey a villain, and how the media have helped feed the mob mentality. In particular, nearly all the TV pundits castigated my former partner and friend Jose Baez, literally raking his personal and professional life through the coals. They landed, heavily, on any witness who spoke up in Casey's favor, making witnesses extraordinarily difficult to find and interview because everyone was afraid of the backlash from the public and the prosecution. There were exculpatory witnesses who were intimidated to the point that they feared coming forward. (Word on the street? Helping Casey Anthony is dangerous.) I was assaulted myself while investigating this case. I continue to receive hate mail of a type that is hard to imagine.
If only this level of public passion could be garnered for education reform, eliminating poverty and racial injustice, wars, our economy -- you name it. Instead, the nation remains fixated on this case. I am sorry to say that there are hundreds of little girls who go missing every year. They are killed, kidnapped or otherwise treated abominably, but we don't talk about them because they do not come from a white, middle-class, physically attractive family. And while violent crime is at its lowest in nearly 40 years, study after study has found that the media overreport on crime. It is cheap entertainment, you see, and entertainment is what we crave.
The mob rages on, with a few of us trying to stop it, but the jury voted on the evidence, and they should be lauded for doing so.
Death of Caylee Anthony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is Casey Anthony in danger after her release Sunday? - USATODAY.com
Casey Anthony Video May Be Unsealed by Court - ABC News
Threats to Casey Anthony: How safe will she be after leaving ...
The jury was LAZY - tired of being sequestered.
Cyndy Anthony's call to the police - smell of decomposition in the car = nurse's nose; plus tow truck company when trunk was opened.
***************
But yr client could identify the cause of death for her little girl.
I never really thought of that. I don't see many racial problems where i'm at but from what I've been seeing in these posts, many people talk about, if it was a little black girl would she have got as much attention,so I'm assuming that media doesn't focus so much on black victims but on the flip side I wonder as well, whether it would have been such a high profile case? Which, sadly enough boils down to her being convicted, for 20yrs as well.
Interesting observation!
And in this case, people are judging everyone on the side of Casey, just because they want someone to pay for her child's death, and she is the easiest target. No one for sure knows that Casey is the villain, she is just the easiest.
Most people found her guilty before she even went to trial, there was no way that their minds would be change during her trial.
And to think that the taxpayers had to pick up the tab - for these ingrates - is even more outrageous.
wttp://htriawww.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0625/hWhy-ony-s-murder-as-Casey-Antl-abruptly-recessed
From this article I read yesterday, the one above and the Media Bials I can't see how she did get a fair trial let alone a not guilty verdict. Besides the junk science never been used in court there were other things prosecutors has a hand in to make sure the trial was unfair. and they still came back with a non guilty verdict .
I know we have opposing sides on this trial but this link u might find interesting,it's actually what the witness tampering allegations were about and it was not the computer analyst scandal.
for some reason my other post link doesn't work, this is the same article and the link does in fact work
http://www.minnpost.com/worldcsm/2011/06/27/29501/why_was_casey_anthony%E2%80%99s_murder_trial_abruptly_recessed
"Proper" justice to prevail for that child!! Little Caylee, her life and liberty were taken away by her Mother!!!
The fact that Casey will not admit what happened to little Caylee - is why NO one has to have sympathy for anyone but little CAYLEE.
Sickening!
I'm sorry you are receiving threats - that's outrageous. But, you must know that many people who become public figures - especially in a highly charged emotional issue - get hate mail and worse.
Again, it is no reflection on the millions of clear thinking people who were appalled by the verdict.
Casey anthony did get lost in the shuffle.........for quite a while............until her trial.
It was little Caylee Anthony that never left our minds and hearts.
The mob behavior is outrageous, but it's truly a small, insignificant minority, and does not define "the general public."
People who disagree with the verdict cannot be painted with the same brush. Many calm, rational observers feel the jury's conclusions were wrong.
The public is frothing at the mouth about this and it is a sad statement about our jurisprudence system. It is especially egregious that cameras were even allowed into the sanctity of a courtroom for cheap, voyeuristic purposes. This is the outcome of tabloid sensationalism at its worst.
I assume that to be an effective defense attorney one migt chose to be disciplined about the sorts of thoughts one entertains about the guilt or innocence of ones clients. I mean it seems to me that ones clients would tend to be best served by an attorney who views them as innocent.
Is this a fair expectation in a case where a client has plead innocent?
Assuming that this is indeed the case, and now setting aside the actual verdict of the case, have you actually reflected upon whther this might not have been a case where a guilty person beat the system?
the reason I ask is that your article is based upon the assumption that you are an informed objective source of information about this case, but this seems somewhat unrealsitic given that you just spent months, if not years committed to the unquestionable innocence of Casey Anthony.
It seems to me that perhaps instead of wondering why we areall upset, there is the more troubling and serious question you need to consider is the possibility that the concerns of the public are well founded?
Don't get me worng. I think we need excellent public defenders and you guyys did great. But wining the case does not change the reality of what happened, it only changes whether they are held accountable.
The chose to disbelief that that pretty young girl could actually do such a horrible thing, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
all the the defense offered was unreasonable doubt and that is not enough to acquit her.
Could you please back up your statements with some proof? I'd like to know more about:
"They [the prosecution] landed, heavily, on any witness who spoke up in Casey's favor, making witnesses extraordinarily difficult to find and interview because everyone was afraid of the backlash from the public and the prosecution." Exactly what did the prosecutor's do and to whom? Can you provide evidence for this assertion? Seems to me that you shouldn't say it unless you can back it up. This article, after all, is not a defense Opening Statement!
Please provide some proof for this statement as well. It's really a h3lluva charge to make, unsubstantiated: "There were exculpatory witnesses who were intimidated to the point that they feared coming forward."
Who was intimidated and how? Who did the intimidating? Why didn't you go to the judge and make a complaint at the time?
I'll be very interested in your response.
Why-.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0625/hony-s-murder-as-Casey-Antl-abruptly-recessed
@mamacita of love, sorry i gave u the wrong link on the post above, this one works, sorry again