Where did the prosecution go wrong?

[Nikki 01]

I am really heart broken for the prosecutors. They put a wonderful case that proved she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile you had an unethical lawyer in JB that accused innocent people of heinous crimes they didn't commit, had no respect for the judge and his rules, and did all he could to trash the reputations of the people who worked hard on this case and he gets rewarded with the biggest win of his career? Unbelievable.

 

[magnolia]

I think prosecution did the best they could. The system failed today.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

I still think that there are two subjects trial lawyers too often take for granted:
1) telling the jury that circumstantial evidence counts, too (everyone looking for the direct evidence and nothing else)
2) talking more about reasonable doubt. They always say blah blah blah for about 60 seconds about 'not all doubt is reasonable'. This is a big deal that I think a lot of lawyers overlook. Mason got this. That chart was huge, imo.

Not 'mistakes' per se, but I think sometimes they are too close to the concepts to realize most people don't walk in their world and talk their lingo every day.

 

[magnolia]

Great topic. I was wondering the same thing today. Many keep saying if only the jury heard all the evidence we know. My mind is numb, but what information was the prosecution unable to present that was very detrimental to their case? I know there were things they chose not to present.

I think the state did a great job. I am still in shock, but I really don't believe 12 stealth jurors are likely. I wish the jurors would have collectivly issued a statement for their primary reason. I don't blame them for not coming forward in the media. Some of them have children and families that would suffer for their decision.

I said early that I felt the only critique of the state is them not developing a rapport with the jury. I have to hand it to Jose in that regard. He wished them good morning everyday, and by the end they were wishing him good morning back.

I loved Jeff and Linda's closing statements. They were amazing. However, I did wonder if they were coming across too powerful. At times, Linda appeared to be scolding the jurors. We know she was passionate about her argument, but maybe the jurors were put off by it.

I think the Jury had already made up their mind before the closing arguments by both sides. IMO

 

[Soulmagent]

I was reflecting over where I think they "went wrong" even thought it isnt explained as easy as that.

IMO I believe the ME was a huge thing in this case that went wrong. She came off kinda like NG comes off. The 3 things that let her know it was a homicide are great for her personal opinion but she lacked a professional one of the death certificate. She made the entire homicide ruling questionable

The next thing was failing to address RK and the skull movement . or stick poking or exactly what he did with an investigation and the results of that should have been bought forward. He moved the skull, and it had to be more then he said because of the position on the skull and the jaw.

There is no way after animals moved bones and water flooded the area and the bag was picked up that the skull landed with its mandible in correct position sitting upright as it would on a standing body. Skulls are not balanced as to roll that way and the jaw would have not been with it as it made it descent to it resting location. the duck tape was not holding the Jaw to the skull ,it was holding the mandible up.(per court testimony)

Rk HAD to have put the skull back on its mandible and the fact that he did that makes the duct tape homicide questionable.

This is the mistake of the State, ignoring RK and the fact he moved the skull, and not calling him and addressing this issue and presenting a true story of what he did. The jury saw it as adversion and they didnt trust the tape evidence after that. IMO.

If they would have presented evidence he moved it and shown how their theory still worked the jury may have not discounted the duct tape evidence or had to question why they didnt call RK and other experts on the stand. (if they questioned any of these things)

Good or bad for his case Jose put it out there ,all the sidebars and objections made the state look like they are keeping stuff from the jury ,which is what the defence is supposed to do but he didnt appear to be doing that.

All my opinion.

 

[Madeleine74]

1. I think juries who are sequestered start to feel like prisoners themselves and empathize with the defendant, especially in a trial lasting longer than a week or two. Plus they tend to want their lives back and don't want to spend a lot of time deliberating.

2. Unfortunately a lot of jurors have short attention spans and cannot follow testimony that is longer than the average length of a People Mag. article.

3. "CSI-effect" has created an expectation that every crime must contain DNA linking the perp to the victim and the scene or else you have "reasonable doubt."

4. Circumstantial Evidence - is now seen as weak because of the CSI-effect.

5. I fear that Linda Drane Burdick's tough persona may have turned off the jurors. I loved it, but not everyone loves a tough/strong female prosecutor.

6. The open sniping between Jeff Ashton and Jose Baez seemed to hurt the state much more than the defense.

7. A young, cute, white, female defendant will be able to charm people no matter how much she is shown to be a liar. There are lots of gullible people in the world. Twelve of them were on this jury.

8. Parents who lie for their kids don't help justice. Cindy and George's antics and testimony allowed Baez to take advantage of the dysfunction and muddy the waters. Cindy's lies helped free her daughter.

9. The jury had too many choices and the case was not really a DP case. That jury should have been able to convict on 2nd degree or Manslaughter.

10. People are often confused by "reasonable doubt." They think that means they can't have ANY doubt whatsoever about anything. This trial outcome is why I believe we need to have professional juries, filled with intelligent people who understand the law and have an attention span longer than your basic 10 yr old.

11. Because OCSO did not respond to the calls made in Aug 2008, Caylee's body continued to decompose to the point where there was only a skeleton left. Valuable information was lost in those additional 4 months.

 

[Hisimage]

I just read -- don't know if its true that it was the pet story that made their descision.!!!!

 

[NocturnalLady]

The prosecution should never have treated the Anthony's like they were EVER gonna be witnesses for the state. They should not have treated them with kid gloves and tried to sell the jury the pretense of the A's as nothing but grieving grandparents. (I don't doubt their grief but I doubt every single other thing about them.) The state should have known that they could never control the A's on the stand. THE A's WERE ALWAYS GONNA LIE. So they should have been presented from the get go as liars and dealt with as such.

The prosecution should never have acted like Casey's ONLY motive was to live the free life as a party girl. They should have gone with the REAL motive - Casey hated her mother more than she loved Caylee. The state should have brought out the fact that Cindy was contemplating taking custody of Caylee (she's on tape threatening to do so) and that she was going to kick Casey out of the house. Casey was finally being called on the stealing, the lying, the non-existant job etc. Her world was crashing down around her. Not to mention that Casey never wanted Caylee to begin with. The hiding of the identity of the father and the denial of the pregnancy, statements Casey made to friends all prove that she never wanted Caylee. There are plenty of studies showing that denial of a pregnancy is often a factor when a small child is killed by the parent. All of those reasons were Casey's motive - being free to party with her boyfriend was just an added bonus to Casey in my opinion.

I also agree that the state overcharged in this case. I don't think ANY jury would have felt secure in convicting Casey of anything that could get her the DP. The fact that there is no cause of death leaves just that little bit of doubt - not REASONABLE doubt by any means - but enough doubt to NOT go for the DP. Yes, this means that Casey was rewarded because she managed to hide Caylee's body until it had totally decomposed. Unfair but the state should have recognized that and only charged the maximum of what they could really expect to get.

The last "reason" (in quotes because I think the jury's decision is beyond reason...) is not the fault of the prosecutors at all but rather the fault of the police department and Roy Kronk. The failure of Kronk to MAKE SURE Caylee's body was recovered the first time he found it is unconscionable in my opinion. And the failure of the police to seriously investigate and search when they were told that remains had been found is indefensible.

All that said I think the state should have gotten a guilty verdict on a premeditated murder charge but at the VERY LEAST Casey should have been convicted of aggravated manslaughter. She is guilty of that charge even by the admission in court of her own DT. Even if the jury bought the defense's explanation of how Caylee died then Casey should have been convicted of that charge because she neglectfully caused the death of her child and failed to seek help for her child.

 

[ladylurker]

JMO---For those not familiar with Pinellas County: Highly liberal area. My liberal friend and I agree on one thing: Casey is responsible for Caylee's death.
My liberal friend believes:
1. the case was not proven
2.Judge BP "favored" the prosecution
3.Jeff Ashton is a bully and a jerk

I, being conservative, believe:
1. This circumstantial case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for 1st degree murder
2. Judge BP helped Baez as much as judicially possible.
3. Jeff Ashton is a formidable advocate and prosecutor.

Maybe there in lies the tale as to why this liberal jury returned the verdict they did--Pro Defense biased therefore the evidence was viewed from that perspective.

I consider myself VERY liberal. I am not from Florida...I live in Philadelphia. I do not agree with a single thing that your liberal friend believes, but do agree with you. For the first time ever, probably, saying I agree with a conservative

Please, do not bring politics into this! I'm a liberal, 1) I thought the SA case was well-presented; 2) JP "helped" the DT as much as possible to ensure it was a fair trial and there would be no reversal on appeal, and the SA has no right to an appeal; and 3) JA, LDB and FG are wonderful attorneys. I was never a prosecutor or defense attorney, however, I've known plenty of both (and judges), I always preferred defense attorneys to hang with on a social basis. Most of them were good folk that decided to take on an unpopular job. That said, I didn't find this DT attractive AT ALL.

another bleeding-heart lefty liberal here who completely supported the prosecution in this case, thought JB was a :censored:, and thought JA was amazing. my liberal friends are also shocked over this, quite a few of us crying for caylee today. IMO i don't think political views really would do anything to take away from the fact that ICA dumped her duct-taped baby like trash in the woods, partied like she didn't even care, and did everything she could to obstruct justice. in general i feel this case isn't generalizable to specific religious or political views... i think people of all kinds of varying beliefs wanted justice for caylee and are sorely disappointed (what an understatement) today.

 

[AZlawyer]

There are so many threads on essentially the same topic that I hardly know where to put this, and I certainly haven't read all the threads.

But for the people who are saying "why didn't the prosecution present any evidence of the June 15 fight": what evidence? AFAIK there was no evidence of the fight, certainly no admissible evidence. AFAIK we have no real reason to think the fight even happened.

Is there some other item of evidence people think was "missed" by the SA that would have made the difference?

 

[Trident]

They didnt prove to me Caylee was chloroformed, let alone Casey did it.
They didn't prove she died by duct tape either, let alone Casey did it.
They didn't prove Caylee's body was in that car trunk, even some LE didn't smell it.
George was belligerent, and looked guilty of something.
JA was nasty and condescending to River Cruz/Krystal, when he didn't need to be, he came across arrogant, and I lost respect for him.
I don't believe they tied Casey, and Casey alone to anything.
I think they were too confident
There were plenty of other things they could have brought in, but didn't.

The closing arguments were great, but not enough, and I believe JB was able to poke holes in the "expert" testimony, even I doubted some of it.

My opinion only

 

[Nova24]

Jury was played like a fiddle by DT and ICA. They won't relaize it until it's too late.

 

[Denvermark]

They never proved the chloroform. Where was the evidence of her making chloroform. I think she did it bit they didn't prove it.

 

[Chris_Texas]

The conclusions are based upon the comments I have read on non-crime forums.

In no particular order:

* The prosecution completely failed to counter the defense's definition of reasonable doubt. The DT spent 3 hours redefining the turn to mean "Any unanswered question no matter how irrelevant." The prosecution let this ride and it destroyed them. Note how many folks comment on the lack of PROOF rather than an absense of evidence.


* JA's behavior, particularly during the defense close, while cheered here, was outrageous. Not only did his antics damn near cause a mistrial, but almost certainly turned-off the jury as well. Hell, I am a fan and it turned me off.


* New Science... the prosecution tried to introduce a lot of new ideas, from hair bands to air vacuums to smell cans. New science = easy to shoot holes in.

* George.... MANY people believe he is guilty or at least involved.

* The chloroform search results were, to anyone computer savy (or anyone paying attention), ludicrous.

 

[grandmaj]

I don't think the Prosecution did anything wrong.

What I think is a miscarriage of justice is a defense attorney putting George Anthony on trial in his opening statement. They infected him as a molester and a co-conspirator. The State ran a clean case. No matter what George Anthony did he was infected. If he told the truth or if he lied he already had a total disadvantage. That is a miscarriage of justice when a defense attorney can lay the blame at the feet of someone else without one ounce of proof. Something is wrong with our system of justice when this is allowed.

If George had any guilt, where is the proof? There is none. George and Cindy put their faith in Baez from very early on. They went along with his schemes. They lied in hearings and in depositions. And then once they were stuck with their testimony Baez went after George.

The jury listened to an actor rather than the evidence in my opinion.

 

[Chris_Texas]

10 hours and 40 minutes to come up with the verdict tells me the jury did not understand the evidence. It's like giving a lesson to a group of kids and they nod like they understand but they just didn't get it at all and fail the exam. There's no way that they could fly through discussions about the evidence in that short amount of time. JMO

That's the key. But I disagree with your conclusion.

It is not that they did not understand the evidence. They felt that they knew enough. After all, the nice southern gentleman told them that if they had any questions, any at all, if there was even the teensiest doubt about the littlest of things then, by gosh, they gots to vote not guilty.

And NO ONE from the prosecution side bothered to correct this. No one got up there and actually explained what REASONABLE DOUBT means. Sure, Ahston did say something like "I don't even HAVE to tell you..." about a few things, but clearly the jury disagreed.

They never deliberated at all, they never reviewed any evidence, they said,. "Well I still have some questions, they didn't PROVE it, not guilty"

 

[cluciano63]

That's the key. But I disagree with your conclusion.

It is not that they did not understand the evidence. They felt that they knew enough. After all, the nice southern gentleman told them that if they had any questions, any at all, if there was even the teensiest doubt about the littlest of things then, by gosh, they gots to vote not guilty.

And NO ONE from the prosecution side bothered to correct this. No one got up there and actually explained what REASONABLE DOUBT means. Sure, Ahston did say something like "I don't even HAVE to tell you..." about a few things, but clearly the jury disagreed.

They never deliberated at all, they never reviewed any evidence, they said,. "Well I still have some questions, they didn't PROVE it, not guilty"

I agree. Few people want to admit that the defense did a good job on Sunday and a decent job overall, despite blunders. The state, to me, came across as machines, whereas the defense, JB anyway, seemed more human, if bumbling. I am thinking he is bumbling like Columbo now...

I think the state was overconfident and did not impress the jury that A. circumstantial evidence holds the same weight as physical evidence B. that reasonable doubt does not mean ALL doubt C. That the relationship between Cindy and Casey was toxic, not just a little dysfunctional.

The state was after a capital verdict and seemed to want all or nothing ,and that is what they got.

IMO

 

[animlzrule]

JMO---For those not familiar with Pinellas County: Highly liberal area. My liberal friend and I agree on one thing: Casey is responsible for Caylee's death.
My liberal friend believes:
1. the case was not proven
2.Judge BP "favored" the prosecution
3.Jeff Ashton is a bully and a jerk

I, being conservative, believe:
1. This circumstantial case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for 1st degree murder
2. Judge BP helped Baez as much as judicially possible.
3. Jeff Ashton is a formidable advocate and prosecutor.

Maybe there in lies the tale as to why this liberal jury returned the verdict they did--Pro Defense biased therefore the evidence was viewed from that perspective.

As a proud liberal myself, I find this summary simplistically offensive. There is no basis in fact to insinuate that liberals do not demand accountability or support our justice system. This subject is contentious enough without blaming the evil liberals for the fact that the SAO, as admirably as they fought for Caylee, did not have the proof needed to successfully try this case. :banghead:

 

[Nikki 01]

I don't think the Prosecution did anything wrong.

What I think is a miscarriage of justice is a defense attorney putting George Anthony on trial in his opening statement. They infected him as a molester and a co-conspirator. The State ran a clean case. No matter what George Anthony did he was infected. If he told the truth or if he lied he already had a total disadvantage. That is a miscarriage of justice when a defense attorney can lay the blame at the feet of someone else without one ounce of proof. Something is wrong with our system of justice when this is allowed.

If George had any guilt, where is the proof? There is none. George and Cindy put their faith in Baez from very early on. They went along with his schemes. They lied in hearings and in depositions. And then once they were stuck with their testimony Baez went after George.

The jury listened to an actor rather than the evidence in my opinion.

I completely agree with this. It sickens me that they infringe on the right's of an innocent man and accuse him of crimes that there is no evidence he committed in the name of a defense theory. Something is really wrong with our justice system that this is allowed.

However, GA didn't help himself either. He acted too cagey when Baez would question him. I don't blame him for being angry, but he should have just tried to answer questions to the best of his ability. He really played into Baez's hand. I am so bitter and jaded right now I almost wonder if he was doing this on purpose. I just don't have faith in anyone.

 

[sappysoul]

Well...JB did his job. He has a right to feel good about that, even if we don't like the outcome...

I guess you can say he did his job but in all honesty he was horrid. People who know the law, and know it well, say he made many, many mistakes. It didn't matter. It also didn't matter that the prosecution put on a great case. Not coming back guilty on first degree I could understand although I wouldn't agree with it. Saying there was reasonable doubt ICA was involved in this is beyond comprehension. I understand their right not to comment but on the other hand I think someone needs to explain this. JMO