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

[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.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

The purpose is actually a very straightforward and sensible one; it allows the person to be retried with new evidence, unlike a innocent verdict, which invokes the double-jeopardy principle.

It leaves the jury of saying "we can't say for certain, because you didn't give us enough information to go on to decide either way" instead of the stupid system where if a case is brought before it is ripe (often due to public pressure) the opportunity to convict someone of a crime which they have committed is lost forever.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I dunno if that really bears on double jeopardy, though. In the US, at least, the only way to avoid double jeopardy after a certain point (IIRC it's generally after a jury is empaneled except in certain extraordinary cases) is through a mistrial, which generally requires some extreme occurrence or a hung jury. So either way, you're put at jeopardy of a guilty verdict, even if they come out with a Scotsman's verdict. I think you'd need a more fundamental constitutional change to make it work here, and I'm not sure that'll ever happen.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong but double jeorpardy applies in the following case:

1. Defendant charged with a crime.
2. Goes to court, a jury unanimously agree that they can't find the defendant guilty because even though they suspect guilt they cannot say beyond reasonable doubt, and thus produce a "not guilty" verdict. (i.e. no hung jury or mistrial).
3. New and conclusive evidence comes to light which proves the defendant did in fact do it, but prosecutors cannot charge the defendant again because it would put the defendant in double jeopardy.

I don't know that you would necessarily need a Constitutional change, I don't recall anything in the USC that refers to double jeopardy, only "due process".

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Actually...no I'm wrong about the retrial part. That's a common misconception. Mea culpa.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article413136.ece

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

But I would have to say I think that it should exist and should allow for a potential retrial.