Casey Anthony

[saveliberty]

Nope time served plus a few weeks.

 

[FuelRod]

Lettin' her hair down...ready to get back out there.

 

[High_Gravity]

Lettin' her hair down...ready to get back out there.

She was probably ready to hit the town this weekend but shes going to have to wait a little bit.

 

[Contumacious]

Awesome. So jurors do think about the punishment stage when they should have all their energy focused on the sentencing phase! Good job paying attention to the Judge's instructions, and thank you kindly for your civic duty.

Wharfrat (and all of those who thanked wharfrat for the illumination of what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of judicial process), I believe the jury was deliberating whether or not to convict Casey based on the evidence presented for each charge against her. That's called a verdict. Sentencing usually comes after the complete agreement by the jurors of the defendent being either proven guilty or not, for each of the distinct and separate charges.

From dictionary.com :


Now, for the brief explanation of CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (yeah, yeah, I know...)


From law.cornell.edu:

United States Code: Title 28, Rule 404
Character evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
LII Legal Information Institute
...Character evidence is susceptible of being used for the purpose of suggesting an inference that the person acted on the occasion in question consistently with his character. This use of character is often described as “circumstantial.” ...
“Character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man to punish the bad man because of their respective characters despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.” ...

You said exactly what I inferred; that the crime and punishment phase are separate and distinct. And the jury should not have taken the punishment phase into consideration when determining the crime.

Thanks for giving me a lesson on law from Wikipedia. I'll be sure and throw away all my legal hornbooks, case law, and Pacific Reporters. They're so outdated....

That is totally and completely false.

US Juries have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to judge the Law and the Facts.

American Juries are not the Judges or prosecutors' handmaiden.

.

 

[High_Gravity]

Shes' getting out July 13.

 

[High_Gravity]

Nope time served plus a few weeks.

Less than that, she is being released on July 13.

 

[jillian]

From what I'm hearing, the jury could have sentenced her to life in prison. The prosecutor screwed up in asking for the death penalty. Now she goes free later this month or early next.

I agree with that assessment.

 

[Lotsafreetime]

Awesome. So jurors do think about the punishment stage when they should have all their energy focused on the sentencing phase! Good job paying attention to the Judge's instructions, and thank you kindly for your civic duty.

Wharfrat (and all of those who thanked wharfrat for the illumination of what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of judicial process), I believe the jury was deliberating whether or not to convict Casey based on the evidence presented for each charge against her. That's called a verdict. Sentencing usually comes after the complete agreement by the jurors of the defendent being either proven guilty or not, for each of the distinct and separate charges.

From dictionary.com :


Now, for the brief explanation of CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (yeah, yeah, I know...)


From law.cornell.edu:

United States Code: Title 28, Rule 404
Character evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
LII Legal Information Institute
...Character evidence is susceptible of being used for the purpose of suggesting an inference that the person acted on the occasion in question consistently with his character. This use of character is often described as “circumstantial.” ...
“Character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man to punish the bad man because of their respective characters despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.” ...

You said exactly what I inferred; that the crime and punishment phase are separate and distinct. And the jury should not have taken the punishment phase into consideration when determining the crime.

Thanks for giving me a lesson on law from Wikipedia. I'll be sure and throw away all my legal hornbooks, case law, and Pacific Reporters. They're so outdated....

Well...You're VERY welcome. I understood her to imply from that quote, and from watching her interview that a) they couldn't even decide that she was guilty of one of those four charges due to the lack of evidence to prove it, so b) therefore they were unable to continue on to the next phase. So, no agreement of guilt (first) = no determination of punishment (second). Only she stated it without the full explanation, but still it was pretty simple to understand her statement by the order of a) then b).

After spending some time reading these posts, I have noticed so many people here seem to be ignoring logic and are simply making angry one liners about a jury who DID seem to consider the law before coming to a decision. And a misunderstanding of the decision delivered by a fair trial that our laws are meant to provide, but often DO NOT. Why even bother with a trial? Or picking a jury? For that matter, why have laws if we don't want people to obey them in EVERY situation, like a jury room?

The inference I got from your snarky comment was that you were ignoring what she actually said. But I'm sure I'm just too stupid to get your brilliance, right?

Soooooooooo sorry to quote from (and make reference to, the well known unreliabilty of)Wikipedia, without a backup from a more reliable source (...but wait--I think I did...) Oh well, I guess you weren't able to fully understand me either.

Geez.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, she gets out next Wednesday.

 

[Liability]

Wharfrat (and all of those who thanked wharfrat for the illumination of what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of judicial process), I believe the jury was deliberating whether or not to convict Casey based on the evidence presented for each charge against her. That's called a verdict. Sentencing usually comes after the complete agreement by the jurors of the defendent being either proven guilty or not, for each of the distinct and separate charges.

From dictionary.com :


Now, for the brief explanation of CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (yeah, yeah, I know...)


From law.cornell.edu:

You said exactly what I inferred; that the crime and punishment phase are separate and distinct. And the jury should not have taken the punishment phase into consideration when determining the crime.

Thanks for giving me a lesson on law from Wikipedia. I'll be sure and throw away all my legal hornbooks, case law, and Pacific Reporters. They're so outdated....

That is totally and completely false.

US Juries have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to judge the Law and the Facts.

American Juries are not the Judges or prosecutors' handmaiden.

.

Confusedatious got it wrong again.

American juries judge the FACTS. Judges address the law.

When juries occasionally foray into deciding whether or not they "like" a particular law, they do so at the peril of our system of justice (generally speaking). That doesn't mean that they can't do it. Obviously, if they choose to say "not guilty" even when the facts prove guilty beyond all doubt, they still can. But jury nullification can undermine our entire system. It has sometimes led to justice. But the danger is always present that it will lead to some very different outcomes.

 

[LAfrique]

The jury in Casey Anthony's case did the right thing. The prosecutor only built on speculations and did not prove case. While Ms. Casey would spend more time behind bars, I wish her well.

 

[High_Gravity]

The jury in Casey Anthony's case did the right thing. The prosecutor only built on speculations and did not prove case. While Ms. Casey would spend more time behind bars, I wish her well.

You wish a child killer well? fuck you clown. negged for lack of empathy for the dead. Eat it.

 

[wharfrat]

Wharfrat (and all of those who thanked wharfrat for the illumination of what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of judicial process), I believe the jury was deliberating whether or not to convict Casey based on the evidence presented for each charge against her. That's called a verdict. Sentencing usually comes after the complete agreement by the jurors of the defendent being either proven guilty or not, for each of the distinct and separate charges.

From dictionary.com :


Now, for the brief explanation of CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (yeah, yeah, I know...)


From law.cornell.edu:

You said exactly what I inferred; that the crime and punishment phase are separate and distinct. And the jury should not have taken the punishment phase into consideration when determining the crime.

Thanks for giving me a lesson on law from Wikipedia. I'll be sure and throw away all my legal hornbooks, case law, and Pacific Reporters. They're so outdated....

Well...You're VERY welcome. I understood her to imply from that quote, and from watching her interview that a) they couldn't even decide that she was guilty of one of those four charges due to the lack of evidence to prove it, so b) therefore they were unable to continue on to the next phase. So, no agreement of guilt (first) = no determination of punishment (second). Only she stated it without the full explanation, but still it was pretty simple to understand her statement by the order of a) then b).

After spending some time reading these posts, I have noticed so many people here seem to be ignoring logic and are simply making angry one liners about a jury who DID seem to consider the law before coming to a decision. And a misunderstanding of the decision delivered by a fair trial that our laws are meant to provide, but often DO NOT. Why even bother with a trial? Or picking a jury? For that matter, why have laws if we don't want people to obey them in EVERY situation, like a jury room?

The inference I got from your snarky comment was that you were ignoring what she actually said. But I'm sure I'm just too stupid to get your brilliance, right?

Soooooooooo sorry to quote from (and make reference to, the well known unreliabilty of)Wikipedia, without a backup from a more reliable source (...but wait--I think I did...) Oh well, I guess you weren't able to fully understand me either.

Geez.

You assume too much. First, you assumed I was "ignoring logic," then you assume I wasn't "able to fully understand" you. On top of that you infer I ignored "what she actually said." I made a simple statement, which you take as "snarky," that jurors should not take punishment into consideration when rendering a verdict. Then you called me out on it. So I defended my position. I never called you out for agreeing with the verdict. Nor did I anyone on this forum. Do I agree with the verdict? No. But I'm not the "finder of fact," so it really doesn't matter.

Your supposed "reference" to character evidence has not one thing to do with the separation of verdict and punishment. It's a rule of evidence. Maybe if you were able to apply law to facts a little better, I'd be able to understand your argument.

Like I said, if you are asking me to agree that character evidence shouldn't be the basis for a jury's finding of guilt, then I do. My problem with her statement is that she was instructed by the judge to take only evidence into consideration when rendering a verdict, and from her statement it seems she didn't. There is a reason the verdict and punishment phase are separated, and there are arguments why it should be such, both pro and con.

ETA: Here's a good comparative read on the punishment phase, authored by Judge O.H. Eaton: http://www.judges.org/capitalcasesresources/bookpdf/Chapter 8 Penalty Phase.pdf

 

[Lotsafreetime]

Seems to me the Jury knew she was guilty but declared her not guilty because they didn't know how she killed her daughter. How fucked up is that?

You are exactly right, it is ... but, I think without a definitive cause of death, the jury didn't feel comfortable jumping to the conclusion that she in fact did, deliberately or not, kill the child.
*The defense did it's job by giving reasonable doubt with a perfectly plausible scenerio that she might have drowned that morning before anyone was awake to find her and be held directly responsible. If you study the Anthony family's questionable behavior and testimonies during all of this, you'll find that George is just as likely to have been at home when Caylee died as Casey was. His version, and that's all it is, excludes him from the knowledge of her death. But how can you believe one suspect pointing at the other suspect, without something else to sway your opinion. If you think "Well, Casey's the liar here..." then you have disregarded evidence that he too is a proven liar. So how can you believe either of them? I suspect that over time, as attention fades from them, the Anthonys, or at least one of them, will give away some of their secrets about what actually happened to that beautiful child. But can we believe them when it happens?

One, or both Casey and George, if the state had the proof to determine cause of death, would have been convicted rightfully I'm sure, but it didn't, it left reasonable doubt and unfortunately that's the law.

*Had Casey been better defended, by a more experienced criminal lawyer, I think more people would understand the jury's failure to convict. Jose Baez's witness examination skills were pretty unaffective to me. I believe that a stronger lawyer could have more convincingly argued this case. But Baez will definitely have the opportunity to hone his craft skills from now on...

 

[Wolfmoon]

OK, now I'm pissed off!

The victim known as Caylee Marie Anthony was 2.5 years old. This means Caylee lived on earth for only 913 days.

Why wasn't someone charged with improper disposing of a human body?
Or charged with involuntary manslaughter for the accidental drowning and trying to make it look like a murder?

I find it disturbing that someone would dispose of any child in the manner that Caylee Marie Anthony was disposed of. Most people regard their pets in a higher standard.

Caylees mother Casey Stoneface Anthony will only server 1,043 days for the death of two-year-old Caylee that’s about a day in jail for every day Caylee lived.

Casey “Dry Bones” Anthony was big teeth smiling when she realized she got off the charges of the death penalty and life imprisonment. She was so, happy because she got away with it, she got away with murder, she duped the jurors!

The evidence against Casey proved she was a pathological liar and in the end the jury believed Casey’s unproven, undocumented lies 100%. Casey Anthony is the greatest liar that ever lived. OR did she just get lucky? (Dumb Luck)

Let’s hope her parents sue her for defamation of character and the Equifax Search Team sue her for the hundred thousand dollars they spent looking for Caylee and the State of Florida sue her for all and any past and future cost that they may accumulate. Everyone who can, should sue that bitch so, that she can never enjoy a cent of money she may receive from movie, book and interviews. Maybe, Casey could be the spokesperson of Duct Tape to pay back the court.

Let that Bo Zo Jose Baez work that Biatch to death trying to recover his costs. Never let Casey Anthony forget that the public will never forget what she has done. She has broken the trust of the people that justice will not be served through the judicial system to people who can hide a body long enough. She may not go to jail but that doesn't mean she won't be in pure Hell.

 

[Lotsafreetime]

Dear Wharfrat,

Another simple misunderstanding...your quotes:

"and from her statement it seems she didn't"

Are you now attempting to convince me that there is no assumption from you with that as part of the argument?

No, you see, I am fully aware that you were being snarky (I recognize snarky quite well...) about the jury's deliberation and whether or not they followed instructions. But you and I interpreted what she said in two very different ways, apparently. I understood her to be conveying two different ideas, not one. That first they would need a decision of guilt, and without that there was no need to entertain punishment.

The reference to character evidence was to further expand the idea that with only that information, they couldn't move through phase one: verdict, on to phase two: sentence.

There is a reason the verdict and punishment phase are separated, and there are arguments why it should be such, both pro and con.

I agree with this statement completely, and I really didn't argue in any way with it, just as you suggested in your first response.

If you re-read what I did do, it should be clear to you, that your point was not clear to me. And I'm NOT the one with any formal studies of law, or making arguments, but I would suggest that you perfect those skills if you want to affectively make a point with only a sentence or two. Sarcasm is great when it's funny, not so much when it's meant to demean others. As evidenced by this:

 

[strollingbones]

what if she is in reality innocent....look at past cases that have public opinion has been so sure about and then proven wrong....jo benet.....chandra levy....sometimes truth is so much stranger than fiction

 

[martybegan]

what if she is in reality innocent....look at past cases that have public opinion has been so sure about and then proven wrong....jo benet.....chandra levy....sometimes truth is so much stranger than fiction

The undisputed facts are as follows:

Casey anthony left with her daughter on day X
On Day X+31 she was finally reported as missing by te grandmother.
People around Casey after day X dont remember seeing Caylee at all
Casey's car was found in an impound lot 1 month later with stuff in the trunk
Caylee's body was found around 8 months later in skeletal conditon, with duct tape around the mouth in a plastic bag.

Thats the starting point to figuring out what happened.

 

[strollingbones]

there were all kinds of facts around the jo benet murders that pointed to someone inside the house......condemning pasty ramsey to a lifetime of hate and ridicule but now it seems she didnt kill her child......

public opinion is a sketchy place to hold a trial

 

[wharfrat]

You win. You are right. We should pay attention to only those laws that suit our personal preferences. I'm a piece of shit for thinking differently. I should be burned at the stake.