Ramifications of a Not Guilty Verdict in Casey Anthony Case

[travelgal]

I believe CA will dole out her own kind of justice to KC should KC walk. And it won't be pretty....hehehe...

I have often thought that the main reason CA wants KC home is to rip her a new one and do her Cindy Anthony form of justice! :furious:

 

[lawlady84]

What's in it for the defense team to get a guilty person off? Is it just money and notariety?

As debs said also, for some defense attorneys its protection of the Constitution and justice. Because constitutional law is common law decided in the courts, and courts follow precedent, each decision that nicks away at the 6th amendment, erodes the right for all defendants- not just the one at trial. We might want to throw Casey under the bus, but are we comfortable limiting the protections of every person who is charged with a crime- some who are innocent and wrongly accused?

Some defense lawyers I think are genuinely concerned with protecting rights, and in their "big picture" theory are willing to "sacrifice" defendants in the interests of justice. Ideally, a defense lawyer will want all defendants to get protections so the justice system can convict all and only the guilty parties, and acquit all and only the innocent parties.

Other defense lawyers might see the importance of these issues - but are more concerned with having their name attached to a famous trial than actually fighting for a "cause."

Both of those types of lawyers might be willing to work hard to get a guilty person to walk free if it helps their "ultimate cause" regardless of the hurt it puts on society (in it allows a murderer walk free). JMO

 

[lawlady84]

Also, somewhat O/T but I recently read a very interesting article written by Alex Stein about how the right to silence actually helps the innocent. Juries will assume that many defendants who take the stand will lie (to save their own butts)- so there are 2 pools of defendant/witnesses: those who testify truthfully and are innocent, and those who testify untruthfully and are guilty but lying. Since defendants can plead the 5th and not testify, juries know that some people who are guilty won't testify. Because guilty people have that option - and it seems more reasonably to just not testify than risk lying and messing up - jurors look at those who DO testify as more likely to be innocent than they would otherwise. This gives the innocent a higher probability of being believed.

Its a little confusing, but very interesting nonetheless. And in all these years, I never, ever thought of it- I always thought the right to silence only helped the guilty (thinking- if you were innocent, you'd testify!)

 

[fortytwo]

Also, somewhat O/T but I recently read a very interesting article written by Alex Stein about how the right to silence actually helps the innocent. Juries will assume that many defendants who take the stand will lie (to save their own butts)- so there are 2 pools of defendant/witnesses: those who testify truthfully and are innocent, and those who testify untruthfully and are guilty but lying. Since defendants can plead the 5th and not testify, juries know that some people who are guilty won't testify. Because guilty people have that option - and it seems more reasonably to just not testify than risk lying and messing up - jurors look at those who DO testify as more likely to be innocent than they would otherwise. This gives the innocent a higher probability of being believed.

Its a little confusing, but very interesting nonetheless. And in all these years, I never, ever thought of it- I always thought the right to silence only helped the guilty (thinking- if you were innocent, you'd testify!)

I understand what you're saying, and I find the idea somewhat reassuring in an actuarial sense, but I remain concerned that assumptions due to demeanor, social status, cultural preconceptions, etc. are a weightier burden even on the innocent.

I feel that there are too many well spoken, well dressed, affluent appearing psychos who don't even get suspected once a likely aspected loser stereotype finds their way into the spotlight.

My belief is that most people have a noticeably over-inflated estimate of their personal ability to make character judgments about strangers based on limited contact.

It would not hurt my feelings at all if juries were limited to review of written transcripts of a trial proceeding. I don't think that little mini-Oscar performances add anything to the pursuit of justice.