Casey Anthony

[WillowTree]

Charles Manson would get acquited if he went to trial in America today.

As well he should be.

Do you know how stupid you are making yourself look? Do you care?

No, I do not care. There is not a shred of evidence that Manson ever killed anybody. That's a fact Jack. He should be set loose.

 

[WillowTree]

A bit off topic question. Casey Anthony is to be sentenced tomorrow, why no presentence investigation? Did defense wave or does Florida not order PSI's on misdemeanor convictions?

investigation for what? lying? don't you think Florida has wasted enough of the taxpayer's money. And then that stupid classy defense attorney gave all of America his middle finger. Shit just open the door and let her go..

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Burden of proof
A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judges explain the reasonable doubt standard to jurors in a number of ways. Federal jury instructions provide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." State judges typically describe the standard by telling jurors that they possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt if, based on all the evidence in the case, they would be uncomfortable with a criminal conviction. In giving the reasonable doubt instruction, judges regularly remind jurors that a criminal conviction imposes a variety of hardships on a defendant, including public humiliation, incarceration, fines, and occasionally the forfeiture of property. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any judicial proceeding.Reasonable doubt is also a constitutionally mandated burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution prohibit criminal defendants from being convicted on any quantum of evidence less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 23 L. Ed. 2D 368 (1970). Although the reasonable doubt standard is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Court observed that the standard is so deeply rooted in the nation's history as to reflect the fundamental value that "it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails.

Burden of proof - Definition, Court Cases, Articles, History - LawBrain

 

[kwc57]

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

That's why I was stunned when I was chosen for a jury trial in a wrongful termination case at a chemical processing plant. I was in grad school for my PhD in chemistry at the time and already had a BS in chemical engineering at the time.

Neither attorney disqualified me.

We found for the corporation, btw. The guy was shitcanned for being a slacker.

I was selected some years back for an age discrimination suit. The guy fired was a really nice guy. Had great character witnesses. As the case unfolded, the real reason he was fired (reading between the lines) was because he was aware of an affair going on between two upper management people. The lady involved in the affair came to him (he was something of the office grandfatherly type) asking why people were treating her so weird and he told her why. She freaked. Her boyfriend freaked. They built a "case" of poor performance against him and used that as the reason to fire him. He knew he couldn't win his case based on that since Oklahoma is an "at will work" state. The judge later told us after the trial why he allowed the age suit. A senior management person had come to their office and done a company town hall meeting and told this guy, "you know, they are getting rid of us gray hairs". As poorly as this guy had been fucked over by his company and as much as we wanted to find for him and penalize the company, in the final analysis he was not fired because of his age. He was fired for knowing dirt on someone in a high place. That was not what the case was about. Judges give very specific instructions to the jury and as much as we wanted to help the guy, we couldn't.

 

[WillowTree]

Burden of proof
A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judges explain the reasonable doubt standard to jurors in a number of ways. Federal jury instructions provide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." State judges typically describe the standard by telling jurors that they possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt if, based on all the evidence in the case, they would be uncomfortable with a criminal conviction. In giving the reasonable doubt instruction, judges regularly remind jurors that a criminal conviction imposes a variety of hardships on a defendant, including public humiliation, incarceration, fines, and occasionally the forfeiture of property. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any judicial proceeding.Reasonable doubt is also a constitutionally mandated burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution prohibit criminal defendants from being convicted on any quantum of evidence less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 23 L. Ed. 2D 368 (1970). Although the reasonable doubt standard is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Court observed that the standard is so deeply rooted in the nation's history as to reflect the fundamental value that "it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails.

Burden of proof - Definition, Court Cases, Articles, History - LawBrain

that's a nice lecture innit? but?????? what???? juror number 4 said she had a hard time judging people. juror number 11 said he would have a hard time giving out the death penalty, they made him foreman. The put cotton in their ears and didn't hear a lick of the evidence. I'm convinced.

 

[FurthurBB]

this trial was not at all like oj's...there was no fuck up on the prosecutions part....there was no great defense lawyer....like johnny and the boys......we can question the jurors to hell and back...it is over.....how did someone so guilty to us....look innocent to a jury....she didnt...but again....just because she is a liar does not make her a murder.....this will be one of the unsolved murders of our lifetimes....but in all fairness look at the jon benet murder...everyone was so sure it was the mother....and it turns out now it most likely was not the mother....i would rather have a trial with 12 jurors than a trial determined by public opinion.....we all knew chandra levy's killer...till he was found years later.....

There was a great fuck up by the prosecution. It was trying to charge her with 1st degree murder without any evidence. If they wanted to charge her with 1st degree murder they should have waited until they could get a break in the case that would provide enough evidence. If they did not want to wait, they should have charged her with manslaughter and the neglect and lying to police charges. I believe if they waited to charge her, something would have broken and that if they would not have charged her with 1st degree murder she would have been convicted of manslaughter. Charging her with 1st degree murder made them come up with speculation that rarely flies with juries and in this case was probably not even the way it happened. It forced them to show they really had no evidence. Charging her with manslaughter they wouldn't need to speculate and could have just driven home the point that Caylee was in Casey's care and now she is dead, she was missing for 31 days and Casey didn't report it and went out and partied, something must have happened. Though, I do blame the media coverage which probably made them feel forced into moving too quickly and charging her with too much.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no REASONABLE DOUBT is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

"no other logical explanation can be derived" - apparently the jury saw other logical explanations which created reasonable doubt.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Definition, Court Cases, Articles, History - LawBrain

I may falsely assume that we here seek intellectual answers, so I am offering these documented definitions. Or, maybe we just want to disparage the judicial system and each other...either way, carry on.

 

[High_Gravity]

Common sense doesn't exist anymore.

 

[WillowTree]

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no REASONABLE DOUBT is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

"no other logical explanation can be derived" - apparently the jury saw other logical explanations which created reasonable doubt.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Definition, Court Cases, Articles, History - LawBrain

I may falsely assume that we here seek intellectual answers, so I am offering these documented definitions. Or, maybe we just want to disparage the judicial system and each other...either way, carry on.

there will always be doubt. Kerry On

 

[Skull Pilot]

American juries "get it wrong" all the time.

How many innocent people have been imprisoned or killed by our justice system?

Wrongful Executions, Center on Wrongful Convictions

 

[Wry Catcher]

A bit off topic question. Casey Anthony is to be sentenced tomorrow, why no presentence investigation? Did defense wave or does Florida not order PSI's on misdemeanor convictions?

investigation for what? lying? don't you think Florida has wasted enough of the taxpayer's money. And then that stupid classy defense attorney gave all of America his middle finger. Shit just open the door and let her go..

Your ignorance is sometimes more astounding than your biases. Do you have any idea of what is a presentence investigation? Who does the PSI and what is their role in the criminal justice system? I thought not.

 

[martybegan]

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

That's why I was stunned when I was chosen for a jury trial in a wrongful termination case at a chemical processing plant. I was in grad school for my PhD in chemistry at the time and already had a BS in chemical engineering at the time.

Neither attorney disqualified me.

We found for the corporation, btw. The guy was shitcanned for being a slacker.

I was selected some years back for an age discrimination suit. The guy fired was a really nice guy. Had great character witnesses. As the case unfolded, the real reason he was fired (reading between the lines) was because he was aware of an affair going on between two upper management people. The lady involved in the affair came to him (he was something of the office grandfatherly type) asking why people were treating her so weird and he told her why. She freaked. Her boyfriend freaked. They built a "case" of poor performance against him and used that as the reason to fire him. He knew he couldn't win his case based on that since Oklahoma is an "at will work" state. The judge later told us after the trial why he allowed the age suit. A senior management person had come to their office and done a company town hall meeting and told this guy, "you know, they are getting rid of us gray hairs". As poorly as this guy had been fucked over by his company and as much as we wanted to find for him and penalize the company, in the final analysis he was not fired because of his age. He was fired for knowing dirt on someone in a high place. That was not what the case was about. Judges give very specific instructions to the jury and as much as we wanted to help the guy, we couldn't.

Isn't the building of a false case against someone still fraud, or defamation of character? Its using falsehoods to affect the employment of someone, there has to be at least something not kosher with it.

I agree on the age discrimination thing, it wasnt true, so you have to instruct the jury the right way.

 

[FurthurBB]

If my daughter accidently drowned, I lied to my parents and police about a ficticious babysitter and/or father having her for 31 days, drove around with her body in my car for three weeks and finally dumped her body in the woods I'd expect to be executed to clear out the gene pool as much as anything.

For all we know she might be a sociopath/pychopath. Its rare to find female ones but they exist, but her show of emotion only when items related to herself occured may be an indicator of this type of personality disorder.

Yeah, and the pathological lying, but it also makes me wonder about the molestation charges. I know someone who has sociopathic personality disorder. She lies constantly, you cannot even get a straight story out of her about her drive to the grocery store. She can be nice, but you can be guaranteed it is for her benefit alone. She only ever cries for herself. She was molested by her father, her mother knew and ignored it and I often wonder if that is what caused her problems. Not saying it is the case, or if it has anything to do with this case if it is true, just made me wonder.

 

[WillowTree]

A bit off topic question. Casey Anthony is to be sentenced tomorrow, why no presentence investigation? Did defense wave or does Florida not order PSI's on misdemeanor convictions?

investigation for what? lying? don't you think Florida has wasted enough of the taxpayer's money. And then that stupid classy defense attorney gave all of America his middle finger. Shit just open the door and let her go..

Your ignorance is sometimes more astounding than your biases. Do you have any idea of what is a presentence investigation? Who does the PSI and what is their role in the criminal justice system? I thought not.

Again you moron. You want to spend presentence investigation taxpayer money for lying? Here's a clue moron, their won't be a sentence. She'll arrive in front of the Judge who will give her time served and she'll be out by noon.

Oh, and I bolder your stupid sentence structure and you want to call me ignorant? Welldoyahuh?

 

[FurthurBB]

They convicted her of lying? If she's innocent what was she lying about? doyathink?

The evidence is very compelling that she lied to police, who wouldn't convict her of it?

Why did she lie to the police? shes innocent right?

Why do you think she is innocent?

 

[martybegan]

If my daughter accidently drowned, I lied to my parents and police about a ficticious babysitter and/or father having her for 31 days, drove around with her body in my car for three weeks and finally dumped her body in the woods I'd expect to be executed to clear out the gene pool as much as anything.

For all we know she might be a sociopath/pychopath. Its rare to find female ones but they exist, but her show of emotion only when items related to herself occured may be an indicator of this type of personality disorder.

Yeah, and the pathological lying, but it also makes me wonder about the molestation charges. I know someone who has sociopathic personality disorder. She lies constantly, you cannot even get a straight story out of her about her drive to the grocery store. She can be nice, but you can be guaranteed it is for her benefit alone. She only ever cries for herself. She was molested by her father, her mother knew and ignored it and I often wonder if that is what caused her problems. Not saying it is the case, or if it has anything to do with this case if it is true, just made me wonder.

Sociopathy is usually considered to be environment, pychopathy is usually considered genetic. Both terms are debated with regards to what they mean and what causes them.

To me her behavior in general falls under one of the two. The lack of empathy for anything except herself, the ability to ignore her daughter being missing/dead(whichever way) and go on with her life, as well has her ability to lie about anything lead to this type of personality disorder.

Again, you usually see this more with men, but women have been known to have it.

 

[FurthurBB]

I like William Joyce's idea of having professional jurors.

Because the average IQ of American citizens has dropped into the two digit category.

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

Well, true it is only anecdotal, but I have been called for jury duty 10 times and as soon as they ask my level of education they excuse me, sometimes by the defense and sometimes by the prosecution. It just depends, and then my stepfather told me no one wants too educated of a juror because they can sway everyone to their side with little effort because the others think they know better. Even if that is not at all true.

 

[WillowTree]

The evidence is very compelling that she lied to police, who wouldn't convict her of it?

Why did she lie to the police? shes innocent right?

Why do you think she is innocent?

Because she was found NOT GUILTY turdroller.

 

[FurthurBB]

Why did she lie to the police? shes innocent right?

Why do you think she is innocent?

Because she was found NOT GUILTY turdroller.

Not guilty does not mean innocent. Why are you obsessed with feces?

 

[WillowTree]

Why do you think she is innocent?

Because she was found NOT GUILTY turdroller.

Not guilty does not mean innocent. Why are you obsessed with feces?

It's the law of the land. She walks like the innocent lamb that she is.