The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was not instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight and consideration as direct evidence. Indeed, the words "circumstantial evidence" do not appear anywhere in the court's charge to the jury. I do not know whether or not the prosecution requested such an instruction, but the court did not give it, and apparently Florida law does not provide or require it.
The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence.
Jury charges are invariably long and complex and difficult to understand. The courts have been struggling for years to make them shorter and simpler. Pattern and model charges are common in many jurisdictions. In the process some essential instructions may have been deleted. Traditionally, jury instructions contained language along the following lines (excerpts from a Connecticut model instruction):
There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence.
Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. ***Assume that it is a December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct evidence. That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn.
There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in the courtroom. In fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from which you are asked to infer the existence of another fact or set of facts. Before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.
Obviously I cannot be certain that such an instruction would have made a difference. However, the few tidbits received from jurors seem to suggest that the lack of direct evidence of guilt was the prime factor in their verdict. Although many, if not most disagree with the verdict (myself included), neither the jury nor the court can be faulted. The jury followed the law as given, and the judge instructed the jury as required. Nor can I find any fault with the prosecution team, which in my opinion, performed with great competence and integrity. I cannot lavish such praise upon defense counsel, but I suppose their victory for their client moots any criticism of their tactics -- a subject possibly for another day.
In my more than 50 years in the law I personally experienced disagreement with a jury verdict twice -- once as a trial lawyer and once as a trial judge. Practically everyone reads or hears about verdicts with which they disagree. I know I do. But with minor, but sometimes very serious exceptions in both findings of guilt and acquittal, the system works well and the jury gets it right. Nothing could be worse than to harass or threaten jurors for their verdicts. Jury service is both a duty and a sacrifice; no one should be condemned for pursuing their conscience.
Spencer Green: Casey Anthony Jury to Solve Debt Ceiling Crisis in 11 Hours
Dan Abrams: Casey Anthony Coverage: Far Less Dangerous Than Media's Political Reporting
Michael Graziano: Casey Anthony, the Jury's Decision, and the Neuroscience of Morality
Casey Anthony Juror: Jury Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict ...
Casey Anthony Trial Juror No. 3: We Were 'Sick to Our Stomach ...
Casey Anthony Trial: Meet the Jury - People
for the entire population of the City of Cleveland could have the first hand knowledge of hoe the voice to skull system was used on them and their children inducing on them criminal behavior, against their free mind and free will.
http://jjdpcalvindrakeministries.blogspot.com
The team of blacks created a organized crime team to murder
Written by Calvin Drake Fell
Not to mention "social media" research by trial consultants.
Your point would be well taken if the playing field were level. But we know it's not. Truly indigent defendants (not those who sell photos to TV networks for hundreds of thousands of dollars) are seriously disadvantaged. That's the true injustice.
You've bought in, sir. And you're just looking for an excuse to moan and groan... get over it and move on. #yourlife'stooimportant.
The reaction to The State v. Anthony verdict just proves, once again, that the media has brainwashed you by the millions. For months you were spoon-fed tidbits of information that condemned Casey Anthony- the same tidbits that would undoubtedly increase ratings. And now, in the face of a finding of "not guilty," every person entranced by those same tidbits is in utter shock. -- I'm shocked too... Shocked that more of you do not understand the prosecution's need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and shocked that one's peculiar penchant for elaborate tall tales and inopportune tramp stamps should be enough, for some of you (here's to you Nancy Grace), to meet this standard. Whatever happened to poor Caylee is surely an unspeakable tragedy, but let us not forget that supposed guilt according to oft-misguided public opinion means nothing in a court of law."
"Why would a mother not report her child missing (or dead) and would have continued if not confronted by her own mother?" - but thanks for the clarification--it is important.
With 30 pages of jury instructions I would have thought that in and of itself would take them 11 hours. And then it seems they tossed those instructions in the garbage and came up with their own verision of what they thought.
Given that this article clarifies what circumstantial evidence actually is, this jury obviously didn't know going into deliberations that this evidence was to be given the same weight as any witness account. I don't blame them, I blame those instructions for not bringing it down a few notches where regular people could understand it.
I had a curious incident with a coworker about this trial. The woman in the office next to mine had the feed from the trial streaming on her computer for the entire duration. I don't normally pay attention to such things but several days before the verdict I asked her if they were going to convict Casey Anthony. I was very surprised when she said "No". Her reason was that, although she thought Anthony was guilty, the prosecutor hadn't proved it to her. I was surprised because I just followed the trial very casually what was in the newspaper or the radio, and assumed she would be found guilty based on what I heard, but here was a person watching very closely who said the opposite. So, when the verdict came out, I really wasn't too surprised, yet still confused on how they got there.
Speaking of the system. I see the civil lawsuits already being filed against the Anthonys. I can already see a comparison to OJ Simpson in which he was found not guilty in his criminal trial, yet people were able to use the system to punish him harshly anyway.
Although I know OJ was guilty of the last crime in which he was convicted, it bothers me to no end that the guy who first told him about his stolen memorabilia, encouraged him to go and get it back, secretly taped the whole incident (and sold the recording to the media), was given immunity and testified against him. When you look at the sentencing it does not appear justice was blind or impartial. It appears that he was given a long sentence because of his notoriety.
In that case it appears that the system was abused to accomplish a specific task, to get OJ.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on that. I hope you respond. Thanks
Clarification from the legal community is helpful.
That said, I think that this was a case of the police looking for evidence that fit their theory. In real science, you follow the evidence where it takes you. The State's Attourney was out-lawyered by Ms. Anthony's lawer and she was aquitted. Whether the jurors got good advice or not really doesn't matter all that much, their instructions were in accordance with Florida law.
When I see something like this, I ask, "Which is better, for a guilty person to go free or for an innocent person to get the death penalty?" It's cases like this that make me more and more opposed to the death penalty.
Wonder if anyone discussed THAT behind closed doors, hmmm?
It's heavily biased towards the defense for a reason: at some point as a society we made the collective decision that it is better to let a thousand guilty people walk than to imprison one innocent person. Many countries do not have trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, double jeopardy, or the right against self incrimination. Casey Anthony is benefiting, to be sure, but so are the rest of us.
I saw some members of the OJ jury interviewed a few years ago, and was struck by how they understood the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be closer to 'beyond any crazy theory that someone could cook up and make into a movie.' They didn't quite go so far as to say that OJ had to be found not guilty because space aliens might have done it, but their reasoning was close to that.
An additional contributing factor is that everyone who watches crime shows on television "knows" that forensic evidence can prove things 100 percent. Rarely so, but expectations are high.