Another topic I feel I have to interject with:
I think one thing that needs to be immediately cleared up is contrary to public opinion, the law doesn't say you are "innocent until proven guilty" - really, it says you are NOT GUILTY until proven guilty. Saying the accused is "innocent" implies a moral judgment, that the person has done no wrong. The law doesn't say that. The law does not make moral judgments. It sets rules and precedents against which behavior is judged. The "presumption of innocence" is legalese, establishing the burden of proof. It means the default rule is a blank slate- the defendant goes in without any presumptions against him, and the state builds its case from the bottom. It DOESN'T mean EVERYONE must "presume" the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
OneLostGrl just gave me the perfect example of this. She said she is "not yet convinced of Casey's guilt." NOT that Casey is "innocent." And this is the point I think the defense in this case, and some of the defense-supporting-posts, are missing.
The jury only sees the evidence that is admitted in court. Because of certain Constitutional protections and "best practices" developed by courts, some evidence will be ruled inadmissible and the jury will never see it. If evidence was obtained illegally it can be suppressed, if scientific evidence doesn't mean certain standards it can be excluded. This is done to protect the integrity (don't roll your eyes!) of the justice system. I've read cases where the defendant really was deplorable, but the evidence just couldn't be admitted. Judges usually end those opinions with a very old Supreme Court quote saying something like, "it is unfortunate that often the most undesirable elements in society benefit most from America's reverence for liberty and freedom, but each 'exception' we grant to the protections of the Constitution leads us one more step towards tyranny." Even prosecutors will agree deep down the law has to apply to everyone equally.
So if you are the defense in a case where honestly the evidence only points to your client, you focus on getting as much evidence as possible excluded. You want to limit the amount of evidence that the jury actually sees. You go to your office, and don't leave until you find cases in Florida where judges have excluded the type of evidence you want excluded. You literally PILE UP CASE LAW. JB, if you are reading, I know this concept is foreign to you. But you do legal research. You want to convince the judge, basically, "see, everyone else is excluding this."
And then you pray that some of your motions are granted, and maybe the Prosecution gets nervous and will offer a plea. And then you take it. Is this lawyering on technicalities? Pretty much. But its a hell of a lot better for your client to be morally guilty and legally not guilty than dead.
