The Casey Anthony Trial -- American Judicial Porn versus Justice

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You might not have noticed, but The Twitterverse exploded in outrage Tuesday after Casey Anthony, the Florida mother accused of murdering her 3 year old daughter in 2008, was found not guilty of murder charges by the jury in her criminal trial. For those not following the case or indifferent to it, the highly stylized story is that Caylee Anthony went missing in the summer of 2008. Her mother and family did not inform the police until much later, gave objectively false information to investigators and Ms. Anthony was documented partying while her child was missing. In December, her daughter's body was discovered in the woods in an advanced state of decay and Ms. Anthony was eventually charged with her murder. The case gained enormous attention in the media, especially from former prosecutor turned media talking head Nancy Grace, most of it villifying Ms. Anthony. The prosecutors were not shy about talking up their evidence prior to the trial, including evidence of a "smell" in Ms. Anthony's car, as if they had a slam dunk for conviction. On Tuesday, a jury of 7 women and 5 men acquitted Anthony of everything except lying to investigators.



Maybe...maybe not.

The Casey Anthony trial represents, in my opinion, one of the worst aspects of our media. It is one thing for news "analysts" to fashion themselves as entertainment. After all, they are seeking a living within the media. It is even one thing for coverage of politics to focus on sensationalist stories that garner heavy ratings -- if your media outlet does not draw eyes, it does not get advertising or subscription revenue. But taking one of the most important parts of our legal system -- the criminal trial -- and transforming it into a form of "judicial porn" for ratings distorts the system tremendously. This is not exactly new. Many here probably remember the O.J. Simpson trial as a similar media circus with a similarly puzzling outcome. And one could rightly argue that the phenomenon goes back as least as far as the Linbergh baby kidnapping or perhaps the Dreyfus affair.

The problem, however, remains -- by turning criminal trials into high profile media events, the entire purpose of the trial, to determine if an accused person has actually commited a specific crime, is put into jeopardy. Casey Anthony was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before any evidence was presented to the jury in a spate of media coverage drummed up by the likes of Nancy Grace that was enormously profitable, but which set incredibly high expectations for the evidence. After all, if Ms. Anthony was a "obviously" guilty as the pundits insisted, there must have been fantastic evidence to convict her of murder.

Only not so much. The evidence against Ms. Anthony for murder was entirely circumstantial. The prosecution has no actual theory about her motive, nor could they physically tie her to the death. The "smell" evidence that had been touted in the media for months before trial is not accepted science and was easily put into doubt by the defense.

Also, given the extreme high profile of the case, the prosecutors likely felt pressure to seek the highest possible punishment, and they eventually proceeded to press for a death penalty conviction. The prosecution sought first degree murder and aggravated manslaughter without any theory of her motivation or even how the child died.

So it comes down to a jury, presented with the actual case. Unless they have been living under a rock, they know there is strong media hype about the case. They know that Ms. Anthony's despicable behavior after the death of her child has stirred popular outrage against her. They know the evidence against her has been touted by the media. And then they are asked to convict her on intentional murder charges and are presented the actual evidence against her. I can honestly say that my faith and trust in the prosecution would be pushed to the limits. I am not surprised that that happened here as well. You cannot convict someone of first degree murder because you think she was not honest about what happened to her child and because you hate the way she behaved afterwards.

But what if things were a little different? I am not going to suggest that cameras and media be banished from the court house. I am not going to suggest that trials be closed to public. But what if BEFORE trials begin the public "right to know" was satisfied by knowing that a crime had been committed and that a specific person was accused of it? What if prosecutors and defense attorneys were required to keep their mouths shut to the media and issue no comments and make no public comments on the evidence? What if operations like Nancy Grace's could only cover the actual trial instead of turning the entire process into judicial porn?

I'm married to a pro-bono public defense lawyer. We talked about this last night, and she (and much of her office for that matter) is convinced that if the prosecutors had gone for involuntary manslaughter and cover up charges, they could very likely had gotten a conviction and Ms. Anthony would be looking at years of imprisonment. Instead, you have a pre-trial hype machine that presented the case against Ms. Anthony as a slam dunk, prosecutors likely pressured into overreaching on charges, and a jury, once presented with the actual quality of evidence, that lost its faith in the prosecution. And, as additional irony, the publicity and hype in the pretrial may very well have attracted Ms. Anthony a defense team she never could have afforded otherwise.

Do we need to rethink using our criminal justice system as yet another form of entertainment media?

Comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Thank you for some common sense.

Also:
http://www.theroot.com/views/lets-not-be-distracted-casey-anthony?GT1=38002

[bex.livejournal.com]

That was awesome, thank you! I just shared it on my FB wall. The amount of ridiculousness over the past few days has really boggled my mind. I mean, I see people calling for the abolition of the jury system because obviously "jurors are stupid!!11!" Uh, no. This was the system WORKING AS INTENDED, you twits. If you want to call someone stupid, turn your attention to the media and the prosecution.

I realize it's a very emotional case and everyone seems very invested. You know what, though? Kids die every day. Every single day, a kid is killed in an accident, or by neglect, or child abuse, or just straight-up murder. They get buried in tiny graves and they rot, and nobody but their family members ever hears a word about it. Why is that? I can't answer that question. I'm sad that Caylee Anthony is dead, but I don't feel the need to leave my "Porch Lights on for Caylee!" or copy/paste your ridiculous truck macro and add my name to the "Convoy for JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE!!!!", and I'm sure as hell not changing my FB photo to a picture of a dead toddler. Jfc, people. How could you possibly be any more tacky?

[bex.livejournal.com]

The reason I even give half a crap about this case is purely sociological. I think it is freaking fascinating that the prosecution essentially hung their entire case on portraying Casey Anthony as a bad mother. I mean, she was, by my measure, but that's not enough to get a murder conviction - and it shouldn't be. Society attaches a lot of baggage to motherhood. Mothers are supposed to be kind, nurturing, patient, self-sacrificing, and -- above all - in absolute love with their children. This is not reality for most women. Of course, you can try to BECOME these things to reduce some of the pressure you feel because of the mismatch between what you feel about yourself and what society expects of you as a mother, but few women naturally meet these expectations. Why should we? Becoming a mother is a transformation, sure, but you're still an individual with needs and desires, and you don't lose those needs and desires just because you have a child.

It reminds me of every other case when a child is missing/dead - public attention turns to the parents and their grief. How are they behaving? How quickly do they move on? Do they go on vacation? Do they buy a new car? Are they seen on the news every night, sobbing hysterically? We all deal with grief in our own way, and yet the outward performance of grief is judged by others. I remember the JonBenet Ramsey case and the suspicions cast on her parents, especially her mother, because they didn't seem to be "acting right." I think it's so awful that parents are expected to grieve outwardly and publicly over the loss of a child so that the public may be "convinced" of their innocence. Or what about the Azaria Chamberlain case? U.S. people probably don't recognize the name - it's the infant girl of "A dingo ate my baby!" fame. Her parents were convicted of her murder but later exonerated when other evidence of dingos attacking children came to light. There was mud-slinging then, too.

Anyway, back to this case. I don't know if Casey Anthony is innocent or not - I wasn't privy to the evidence discovered by police or raised at trial, only what was reported in the media, which is hardly a fair representation of both sides of the argument. A little girl is dead and her mother is a "bad mother" - the media has had it out for Anthony since the beginning, and I feel that news programs have shown a very one-sided story that now has everyone convinced of Anthony's guilt, a dangerous game indeed (see: the woman who killed herself after Nancy Grace harangued her about her missing infant son). I do think, though, that the prosecution relied too heavily on our society's contempt for women who do not fit the "perfect mother" ideal - it seems as though the prosecutors felt comfortable painting Anthony as a bad mother and letting the jury's imaginations do the rest. If the "bad mother" idea is the best evidence they had, then in this case I would say the jury did the right thing. You can't condemn someone for murder just because they don't fit your worldview of how good women should act. There was other evidence, I know, and I think the prosecution is at fault for not making a stronger case that relied on that evidence. They screwed up here, big time.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

In cases where all they have is some suggestive, but not conclusive evidence about the circumstances, then neither surprising nor unreasonable that they would try to use evidence regarding the mother's character to convince the jury that she was someone who would want to, and was motivated to, kill her own child.

Even in a moderately open and shut case, you still need to convince the jury that the person would have a reason to kill.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I sincerely doubt her "defense team" was all that amazing. Here (http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/lawyer-of-the-day-jose-baez/#more-75439) is some criticism of his handling of the case. It came down to decent cross-examinations, but really that is a function of the prosecution's shitty evidence and witnesses, and not a function of the strength of the defense team. If the prosecution had possessed more credible evidence, then the defense - which was haphazard, relied on assertions it never even attempted to demonstrate, and had quite a bit of downright laughable motions (motion to suppress because the evidence defamed the defense attorney?) - would never have worked.

And for the ridiculous coverage... yeah, it's ridiculous. The problem here was with the prosecution, and not the press, though. They should've declined to comment, fought to keep cameras out of the courtroom, and generally attempted to protect the integrity of the process. They did not.

[bex.livejournal.com]

Agreed - the defense wasn't skilled or amazing, they were just fucking lucky that the prosecution punted them a whiffle-ball of a case. I'm sure Baez is very grateful to them now.

Did you see the footage of people lined up outside the courtroom, wanting to go in? As though a court case is as much of a hot-ticket event as a filming of Oprah? Gaaaaah.

The article...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... contends that her case would have been handled by a public pretender without the media hype and thus wound up in a plea bargain.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my Facebook friends list went nuts with it yesterday, and the turds are still flying.

The emotional reaction to the case is understandable, and I agree that Casey Anthony is probably guilty of something besides just lying to the police, but this is how our jury system works. The prosecution did not demonstrate, to the jury's satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the charges presented, and the defense was successfully able to raise those reasonable doubts in the jury's mind.

They could have found her guilty on either of the major charges; they could have been divided in opinion and forced a mistrial. But, they found her not guilty. That doesn't mean she is innocent, it means that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. I am one of those increasingly rare Americans who genuinely believes in Blackstone's principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Sometimes this means that justice is not served. And yes, that sucks, and it's terrible that this poor little girl will probably never receive true justice. But it is the price we pay for enshrining in our laws and institutions the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Casey Anthony was not proven guilty in a court of law, even though she was easily convicted, condemned, and sentenced to death in the court of public opinion amid an embarrassing circus of media hype, popular rage, and a rather sickeningly gleeful fascination with human tragedy..

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Cases like this make me think wistfully of the Scottish "Not Proven" option.

Not that I actually want that option in American law, just that i think about it wistfully.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

What consequences, if any, are tied to that verdict?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I sometimes wonder about the Scotsman's verdict. I'm attracted to it as a form of public censure, but I think it's mostly used (there, anyway) in slap-on-the-wrist cases where the jury thinks they did something illegal, but not wrong, or not meriting the punishment. Sort of a lighter, nicer jury nullification. I could be wrong though.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

What about justice?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Dershowitz brings up an interesting issue: for whom is justice intended? The prosecutor claimed to seek justice for the victim. Is the victim the only recipient of justice?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

IMO one of the best summaries of the jury verdict in this case came from a right wing talk radio host...

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/jul/06/casey-anthony-verdict/

"Did Casey Anthony kill or have a hand in the death of her daughter? Probably. The jury did not say that she wasn’t involved in her daughter’s death. The jury said that the State of Florida didn’t PROVE that Casey Anthony was responsible for Caylee’s death beyond any reasonable doubt. To re-state: The jury didn’t say Casey was innocent. They said guilt wasn’t proven … and that’s the way our system works. As Voltaire (or some other character back then when people had only one name) said … paraphrasing here … “It is better that 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.” What’s worse? Leaving Casey Anthony to deal with the torment of what she did, or to put a completely innocent man behind bars for the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit?

Yeah --- a guilty person may well have walked yesterday. Stuff happens. But instead of being angry, take a few seconds to try to understand what really happened here. The immense power of the state was thwarted.

I know you’re angry. We’re all angry. This skank probably got away with murder. Think pas that for a moment. Consider the fact that the state wanted to take Casey Anthony’s miserable life -- and the state was stopped from doing so by a dozen common, ordinary and usually powerless private citizens. We had a nursing student, a salesman, a high school dropout (like Casey), a care giver for the elderly who does odd jobs on the side ... everyday people who stood between Casey Anthony and the power of the state. These people were able to stand against this immense power and tell the state “Back off. You didn’t do your job. You haven’t proved guilt. So turn this woman loose and leave her alone!”

If you can set that anger aside for a moment and think … maybe you’ll realize just how wonderful this system really is. In our society the government -- the state -- has one exclusive power that nobody else has. The government, and only the government, can use deadly force to deprive a citizen of life, liberty and property. Take a look at other countries and other civilizations throughout world history. We’ve had dynasties, caliphates, dictatorships theocracies and monarchies. In all of those societies criminals could and would be punished at the behest (whim?) of some ruler; be it the King, an Imam, or some simple half-assed dictator. Not so in our country. Here we have the State of Florida a facet of the most powerful country in the world, stating its desire and its intention to put Casey Anthony on trial and execute her for the murder of her child. Monarchy, Muslim caliphate, Christian theocracy or simple dictatorship --- Casey is on her way to the gallows. But in the United States 12 ordinary citizens step forward with the ability to stop the immense power of government in its tracks.

Frankly … I think there is as much of a reason to celebrate this verdict as there is to be outraged by it. What, after all, is our alternative? Do you want appointees or employees of the state to be the last line of defense between you and a government determined to take your liberty or your life? "

The point that Boortz does not stress enough in here is not only did a jury of 12 ordinary people tell the state to back off, but that the state did without question. The jury system may have it's flaws and irregularities in sometimes convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty but it's beauty in providing a bulwark against excesses of government abuse of power cannot be understated and it is one of the protections we should be most thankful for.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's such a weird conclusion. A trial is supposed to be an impartial event that has nothing to do with the state's agenda. That's why there's a clear divide between judicial and the other two branches of government. If you believe this nonsense then you believe that there's no divide between our branches of government, that the system of checks and balances doesn't exist.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This guy is smoking from the irrational paranoia warrrgarbl pipe.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with that conclusion at all. The jury is acting as an agent of the state. This isn't "stopping the state", this is conducting the business of the state.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Lots of district attorneys are elected.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The moment we allow guilt based on circumstantial evidence is the one where we descend into anarchy.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

We already do that. It's just that it didn't happen in this one instance.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Hey this is America, logic and moderation are not on the agenda!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I didn't pay attention to the whole thing because honestly who the fuck cares. Kids die all the time. Parents do terrible things all the time. I don't know these people, why should I suddenly act like they were my next door neighbor or something.

I guess that's television for you though. Trying to make people personally involved in their arbitrary new thing. Celebrities usually. People care more about Lindsey Lohan getting a DUI than if their kids are doing well in school. Its disgusting.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I totally agree.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"Do we need to rethink using our criminal justice system as yet another form of entertainment media?"

Absolutely. Take the perp walk: a person whose guilt has not yet been established (in many cases, before the accused has even been arraigned) is publicly paraded purely for the media's benefit. If somebody sees an image of the police leading a restrained person the knee-jerk reaction is that the person is guilty. So much the better if the accused is in prison garb. If the accused is a former police officer or an informant, they are typically given an abbreviated perp walk and/or something to cover their face, reducing or completely sparing them the humiliation.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Agree strongly. By mediatizing the presumed guilt and seeking the highest possible punishment, the effectiveness of the system is subverted.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think the larger issue is that instant access to information can lead to tons of knee-jerk reactions, and sometimes knee-jerk consensus that is difficult to dislodge.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Minor quibble: She was actually accused of three different levels:
First-degree murder
Aggravated child abuse
Aggravated manslaughter of a child

I don't think she would have been convicted for even involuntary manslaughter, because if she could have, they would have convicted her on the aggravated child abuse. The problem was that there was no actual evidence to tie Casey to the death, only theories. The 4 counts of lying to the police are essentially the cover up charges.

Yes, it's obvious she's guilty, we all know it, but there's no evidence of it. The court of public opinion knows the truth, but the court system doesn't work on truth, only on evidence.

Do we need to rethink using our criminal justice system as yet another form of entertainment media?

I don't think there's anything we can do about it.