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

[dwer.livejournal.com]

with the judiciary? He's describing checks and balances -- the very way the government FUNCTIONS. That's not "stopping the state", that's running the state.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think the point was more that, in an absolute monarchy or whatever, the state would just do this. I read that as an admiration of the checks and balances that enable us to stand up to what a part of the government wants. He's obviously contrasting the current government (with checks and balances) with past, absolute-rule governments. The fact that he's imprecise and says "government" vs. "the executive/legislature" is shitty writing. The idea here, though, is to celebrate the fact that, under our system, the government can and does trip over itself in the exercise of powers that once would have been unquestioned.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Except it's not tripping over itself, it was DESIGNED that way.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Nonesnse! Victory of the people!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

inorite?

You know what else I always find amusing? That socialist rhetoric and libertarian rhetoric are always so similar...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You're still missing the point.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not, the poster is. A not-guilty verdict isn't foiling the government, it's PERFORMING the government's work. The government has no vested interest in guilty or non guilty verdicts, it has interest in making sure that the process is followed properly and that a legitimate end-game is reached.

This is what happened.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, you're still missing the point. Replace "government" with "executive branch". The executive branch does have a vested interest in guilty verdicts.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No it doesn't. You think the executive branch cares how many people are declared guilty? Maybe assistant DAs report directly to David Axelrod? The comment suggests that the people are rising up against government power when they declare someone not guilty? They're fucking PAID with tax dollars to be jurors!

This is a function of government. And one it does fairly well, at that.