Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Who_What_When]

I also remember thinking how if I were on the jury I would be insulted at the way Jose was talking to them, overly friendly and obviously trying to influence them on something other than the facts. I would have found that a bit insulting, not likeable. I guess we could argue that the prosecution should assume that they will be presenting a case to 12 morons who would find a dumbass more likeable than them, but that is so sad I dont even think it's worth it. I'd rather just work on getting smarter jurors...

Again to my new favorite quote lol:

Just curious, did you find it insulting when JP treated them the same way?

 

[Lovejac]

Need a laugh? This is funny http://twitpic.com/5lrbo9

:giggle::giggle::laughcry::laughcry::laughcry:

I think I have found my new siggy!

 

[KarmicLaw]

Very true... I just wonder how the attorney's will know whether smarminess will resonate with a particular jury? That part I don't get.

One needs to continously gauge those that are viewing the trial from a different vantage point. I sure wouldn't rely on the people here. :-D But that is a compliment.

Individuals who are not familiar with all the evidence will be expressing their thoughts about the trial over the water cooler at work, on Twitter and Facebook, and at the local bars. Your team has to know what the people are thinking. It's also as important that the prosecution team doesn't suffer from it's own confirmation bias which would blind them of the fact that the jury was leaning in the opposite direction. We are talking about a capital murder case. The death penalty. It doesn't get any more serious than this. This is the big kahuna. To be overconfident and take anything for granted is to risk defeat.

 

[Who_What_When]

I don't think that OS is how the defense won, at all. I think it was inconsequential at the end of the day.
I think they won by carefully creating doubt in the minds of the jurors, which is what any defense team will do. FWIW, more neutral reporting here in CA, from reporters that did not follow the case from 2008, were reporting that Baez was doing a great job knocking down each expert! They thought she was guilty but were impressed with the defense! My point is that the perception of the defense was entirely different for those that did not follow the case. The jurors liked Baez and that went a long way to listening to what he said. LDB and JA were not generally "likeable" and while that should have absolutely nothing to do with the verdict, there is still the human element. Hey if I needed the jury to like me in order to convict KC, I would have made them love me!

the case was serious to be sure, which is why when Ashton laughed it was so offensive and Baez's outrage was authentic,imo. I think the jury got that. then for Baez to be magnanimous about Ashton getting in trouble, oh man,he was just reeling the jury in as a real fair guy. he was good.

I saw an interview with Jeff Ashton saying that he knew the young mother issue was going to be a hard one to overcome. Maybe he underestimated how hard it would be to convince a jury that a young mother would kill her child with no prior reports of abuse or any account that she did not care deeply for her daughter, couple that with no COD and you've got a foundation for doubt.
IMO, the prosecutors might have factored that in , in a bigger way, and perhaps played the "we don't know what happened and maybe it was an accident but it still amounts to manslaughter" angle instead of going for the premeditated angle that many of us thought was weak from day 1. Was the prosecution pressured into going this route? I think they succumbed to the public outrage and went for an all or nothing proposition.
All this means that if they had played the game with a little more strategy and taking all the pitfalls into consideration, things may have gone differently. The jury needed to be able to convict her of something that they felt comfortable with. In their minds it is still reasonable to conclude that the death was accidental and KC just didn't and couldn't deal with it. Even the defense would have almost supported this. the dt telegraphed their defense prior to trial, but the prosecution did not adjust their game and they should have.The prosecution did a great job with their case, but they would have hit a home run if they had adjusted with the defense and the jury.

Tapping into those that were unfamiliar with the case would have gone a long way in developing their strategy. I am not trying to debate the merits of the case, but rather that it is so much more than just presenting facts and facts interpretation. It is factoring in the human element.

IMO, it goes way beyond jury selection.

All this is just my very humble opinion and my take on it the morning after.

ITA with your post. You nailed it! BBM: In addition to what you've said, I felt that the SA were swayed by the public opinion of Casey's guilt and they just assumed that the jury would find her guilty because of what everyone knew about her. I think because of that they didn't spend enough time to really dispute some of the questions and theories that the DT put out there, regardless of how ridiculous they may have been. If they would have addressed these theories and altered their strategy after hearing what the DT said in opening statement I think the outcome would have been different.

 

[travelgal]

It continues to bother me more and more that NOT ONE JUROR STOOD UP FOR CAYLEE!! I think she was an afterthought in that jury room. Makes me sick everytime I hear anything about "the jurors"!! I want to scream "WHAT ABOUT CAYLEEEE???"

 

[JBean]

Here is Judge H. Lee Sarokin's opinion on this topic. I agree with all he said.

SNIP

"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."

The full text of his informative article can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

Hi Friday.
I did not read the article yet, but I totally concur with the sentiment in the synopsis you posted.

The problem I see is that the state did not argue anything but premeditated and therein lies the rub,imo. IOW, they couldn't argue 2 theories that were contradictory of one another and that is what I mean when I say they went all or nothing. The argument was that she planned and executed her daughter's murder aka premeditated. They couldn't say, but if you don't buy that at least assume there was culpable negligence and convict her of something else.But wait, if you don't buy that at least assume it was an accident and she didn't report it so convict her of that.
It would have really sounded like the prosecution didn't know what happened and would have undermined their case. They had their story and they stuck to it, they hammered home the argument for premeditated. It was the only way to get to a premeditated murder 1 guilty verdict.

IMO, the 31 days and last person to see Caylee together were the smoking gun and to have capitalized on that chain of events and to admit we don't know what happened but clearly something did that Casey knew about, would have been fruitful, and could have potentially resulted in a conviction of a lesser charge imo.

Of course,we will never know and that too could have resulted an acquittal.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

It continues to bother me more and more that NOT ONE JUROR STOOD UP FOR CAYLEE!! I think she was an afterthought in that jury room. Makes me sick everytime I hear anything about "the jurors"!! I want to scream "WHAT ABOUT CAYLEEEE???"

\

I suspect that each and every one of those jurors thought about Caylee, but were asked to make a verdict based on evidence, not their emotional feelings towards Caylee. I highly doubt she was an afterthought, but like all of these discussions about the jury, none of us really know for sure. Our thoughts about what happened with the jury, at this point anyway, are purely conjecture and projection. JMOO.

 

[JBean]

NOW THAT I really really don't understand. I don't see why they wouldn't be likeable? I remember Baez and the nasty way he treated Cindy on cross, Mason and the nasty way he treated the CSI people, now THAT was unlikeable. I remember asking myself if they were trying to get people to hate them on purpose...

Jeff Aston and LDB, how were they in any way not likeable? They mostly asked appropriate questions and followed the rules, didn't defame anyone at all other than the person on trial (Casey). The only thing I could find someone not liking them on was the fact that they were intelligent and wellspoken, and I could see how some who aren't as intelligent and wellspoken could find that intimidating. I think the majority of people find that likeable. I just don't understand how anyone could not like them?

I also remember thinking how if I were on the jury I would be insulted at the way Jose was talking to them, overly friendly and obviously trying to influence them on something other than the facts. I would have found that a bit insulting, not likeable. I guess we could argue that the prosecution should assume that they will be presenting a case to 12 <modsnip> who would find a <modsnip> more likeable than them, but that is so sad I dont even think it's worth it. I'd rather just work on getting smarter jurors...

Again to my new favorite quote lol:

Just all different perception of the same thing.

I don't know if you followed the Scott Peterson trial, but Mark Gergagos set the bar so low as to what a nasty lawyer is, I am very discriminating when it comes to the smarminess factor LOL.
The judge wouldn't let Geragos enter a video demonstrating how shallow the boat was and that a body could not go unseen as the prosecution alleged. So in an act of brilliance, Geragos parked a replica boat, complete with a dummy body of Laci made out of rocks and overalls inside the boat nearby the courthouse hoping the jury might see it. I don't think Baez approached that level. Of course, trial watcher's immediately flooded it with flowers and stuffed animals transforming it into a makeshift memorial.

 

[MissJames]

Hopefully,when enough time has passed for life to settle down,one of the jurors who has yet to speak,will tell us what the dynamics were in the jury room.
What happened during those 6 weeks that gave the foreman the ability to get 6 people to change from guilty to NG in just a day and a half? Did anyone look at the instructions or any evidence? Why were no questions asked during deliberations?
I have a feeling that what happened is not sitting well with all the jurors now that they are back to their real lives. I know I would be furious if the foreman and juror # 3 were representative of me and my experience as one of the jurors. JMO

 

[Sustained]

Just all different perception of the same thing.

I don't know if you followed the Scott Peterson trial, but Mark Gergagos set the bar so low as to what a nasty lawyer is, I am very discriminating when it comes to the smarminess factor LOL.
The judge wouldn't let Geragos enter a video demonstrating how shallow the boat was and that a body could not go unseen as the prosecution alleged. So in an act of brilliance, Geragos parked a replica boat, complete with a dummy body of Laci made out of rocks and overalls inside the boat nearby the courthouse hoping the jury might see it. I don't think Baez approached that level. Of course, trial watcher's immediately flooded it with flowers and stuffed animals transforming it into a makeshift memorial.

Opening a trial with a defense of sexual abuse knowing full well you could not prove it is meets my definition of "nasty", or hitting beneath the belt. I did follow the Petersen trial and I wish this jury had the same understanding of circumstantial evidence that the Peterson jury did.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I was really humbled tonight when I heard Ron Goldman's father state that he understood the verdict. He indicated how it differed from the factual and forensic evidence in his son's case against OJ. He seemed genuine in his support of the jury based on the difficulties with evidence in Casey's case.

I found that disturbing...if only because I am still guilty of wanting the jurors to feel guilty.

 

[LinasK]

Opening a trial with a defense of sexual abuse knowing full well you could not prove it is meets my definition of "nasty", or hitting beneath the belt. I did follow the Petersen trial and I wish this jury had the same understanding of circumstantial evidence that the Peterson jury did.

Exactly! I think Jose Baez has Mark Geragos beat when it comes to below the bar, you can't get any slimier!

 

[Solange82200]

Just curious, did you find it insulting when JP treated them the same way?

You're kidding, right? Treated them the same way??? He was in charge of the schedule and took into account their sequestration and tried to make them more comfortable. He didn't act smarmy like Jose did, when he addressed them it was mostly to ask if they had followed his previous admonitions. How you can compare Judge Perry to Jose's smirky phony "good mornings" is beyond me.... Plus, it isn;t just the good mornings, it was the fact that he was selling a story that was obviously ridiculous and insulting to anyone's intelligence. Even those who believe in the accidental drowning dont really believe that Kronk took home the skull for a playdate, and that George decided to frame his daughter for a murder that didnt even happen (by calling in some gas cans that the cops never even saw, yet were supposed to somehow connect the duct tape to the scene)? Im starting to get a little annoyed with this game where everything people say is somehow a result of some kind of biased or something. Isn't it just possible that Jose is a typical slimy defense attorney, and hence people don't like him?

 

[GetSmart]

In the aftermath of seeking culpability for Caylee's death, it became increasingly evident that some Jurors have a degree of difficulty following the stringent and meticulous stipulations of their Jury obligations regarding the Honorable Judge's expressed directions.

http://www.change.org/petitions/make-juror-training-before-serving-mandatory

 

[Solange82200]

Hi Friday.
I did not read the article yet, but I totally concur with the sentiment in the synopsis you posted.

The problem I see is that the state did not argue anything but premeditated and therein lies the rub,imo. IOW, they couldn't argue 2 theories that were contradictory of one another and that is what I mean when I say they went all or nothing. The argument was that she planned and executed her daughter's murder aka premeditated. They couldn't say, but if you don't buy that at least assume there was culpable negligence and convict her of something else.But wait, if you don't buy that at least assume it was an accident and she didn't report it so convict her of that.
It would have really sounded like the prosecution didn't know what happened and would have undermined their case. They had their story and they stuck to it, they hammered home the argument for premeditated. It was the only way to get to a premeditated murder 1 guilty verdict.

IMO, the 31 days and last person to see Caylee together were the smoking gun and to have capitalized on that chain of events and to admit we don't know what happened but clearly something did that Casey knew about, would have been fruitful, and could have potentially resulted in a conviction of a lesser charge imo.

Of course, we will never know and that too could have resulted an acquittal.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you said, but Jeff Ashton at one point in closing arguments did offer alternatives. He said that if some choose to believe that she chloroformed Caylee so she could go out, that is still felony murder, since she died as a result of aggravated child abuse. Maybe you mean he should have argued that if you believe in the drowning, you should at least convict of neglect? I personally wouldn't have done that, because I still don't see how 12 reasonable people could believe in the drowning.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I was really humbled tonight when I heard Ron Goldman's father state that he understood the verdict. He indicated how it differed from the factual and forensic evidence in his son's case against OJ. He seemed genuine in his support of the jury based on the difficulties with evidence in Casey's case.

I found that disturbing...if only because I am still guilty of wanting the jurors to feel guilty.

I am sure the jury doesn't feel good, IMO. I posted this on another thread but think it fits here to.

SP's trial lasted for 20 weeks, and the deliberations for 7 days (44 hours?);

3 times less than Casey Anthony's trial, which took 6 weeks with a deliberation time of 11 hours;

Then there is Darlie Routier's trial, which lasted only 3 weeks, and of which, the jury took only 7 hours to deliberate.

When you compare length of trial with length of deliberations then Casey's doesn't seem that out there--in my opinion at least.

OJ's is by far the wackiest with 25 weeks; 4 hours of deliberation!

JMOO. Cheers.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I think that any jury that does not spend time to deliberate a complicated case of facts demonstrate a lack of intellectual curiosity. This is just my opinion. I automatically assume a person is unintelligent if they don't know the difference between Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. I possess another cognitive bias as well....such as ...I dunno...um, if you choose automatically not to breastfeed your child, I judge you to be an inferior Mom. It's not rational, but it's a bias I possess.

But intellectual curiosity is so important in any jury, especially a criminal jury. It's the most important role of being a jury foreperson...It's definately the most important trait that I demand in an employee of my department. I can't stand a lazy mind. I don't care about a dirty house though!! ;-) I don't care how lazy one is when it comes to housework... :::::sneaks off to take out the trash:::::

 

[Caligram]

As the DT kept saying before this case got to the jury, death is different. But I didn't know that it was going to mean they could lie like hell and use the "P" word so freely and outrageously. This jury seemed to be fixated on GA and nasty stuff he was being accused of, when they should have been listening to the 31 days and the hair and the duct tape and the tattoo and .......!! This trial was supposed to be about justice for the murder and disposal of Caylee Marie by her swamp mom.

 

[21merc7]

I was just reading the juror quotes thread (I haven't watched any of the interviews, as I don't see any need to), and noticed the female juror that is talking said, "we were sick, we weren't ready."

What did they think deliberations are for? That is time to make you ready to make a decision, not time to cut and run. I don't understand that at all, but it shows that they did not understand the evidence, experts, or didn't pay attention, and did not want to spend the time it was going to take to figure it out.

 

[Baznme]

I find it interesting that the focus seems to be on "respect for the verdict" at this point. We're supposed to accept it because it was the jury's decision to find her "not guilty". What I want to know is where is the respect from this jury for the work that went into this trial. The defense team went into this with a pack of lies, never presented anything to back up what said, but rather concentrated on undermining what the State presented. Where was the respect for the evidence presented by experts, respect for law enforcement personnel and respect for the Judge's instructions. All they had to do was "read" after entering the deliberation room if they hadn't caught everything before being released to the jury room. Respect for the verdict, my a$$.