Jury announces verdict in Casey Anthony trial - Not guilty for Murder/Manslaughter

[SKORPI0]

It is a bitch. No, not Grace, but yes, she is..... Wait. :sneaky:

I have served on a murder jury once and was first alternate to anohter.
The judges I had explain it VERY well. Follow your common sense. Follow your gut. Use your life experiance to decide.
Some people, need a number. I can rememeber passionate debate where this woman was 98% sure of guilt but 2% was reasonable doubt for her.
We lost a day of our life getting her to 99% (Yes, we did convict).

Served in a murder trial last July 2010, found the woman who killed her husband (12 stabs to body) for 2nd degree murder. Trial was 2 days, earned $17.20/day.

Judge explained to us to weigh what was presented by the prosecution/defense in the case and not use or emotions to make a verdict. Took notes during the trial and had some questions that were never made clear to me or presented that time. Had a heated debate between finding her guilty for 1st degree or 2nd degree. In the end we had to come out with a unanimous decision.

Hopefully Casey Anthony will look for the "real killers" soon. Caylee needs justice. D:

 

[Keeper]

I am not surprised at this at all. Something like this that doesn't have overwhelming facts that can be shown can easily go one way or another. Considering in many people's lives facts no longer mean anything. I mean look at people not believing in evolution, relativity, moon landing,...

Well put. It goes back to common sense.
Didnt 6 of our peers award a grandmother a squillion dollars for putting HOT Micky D's coffee between her legs?
YES... A judge later reduced the award but 6 of our peers said:
"Yup, they right, its Micky D's fault..... Somehow. Dunno how, but they gotta pay".

 

[Keeper]

Served in a murder trial last July 2010, found the woman who killed her husband (12 stabs to body) for 2nd degree murder. Trial was 2 days, earned $17.20/day.

Judge explained to us the weigh what was presented buy the prosecution/defense in the case and not use or emotions to make a verdict. Took notes during the trial and had some questions that were never made clear to me or presented that time. Had a heated debate between finding her guilty for 1st degree or 2nd degree. In the end we had to come out with a unanimous decision.

Hopefully Casey Anthony will look for the "real killers" soon. D:

???? Here in NY we are not allowed to take notes?
Hmmmm, or I wonder is that "Judge Decided"?
Cause we (the jury) asked both times and were told "NO".

 

[KGB]

Lol, you just entered the Spidey Zone

 

[Red Dawn]

so when will all the angry white people start looting all the jewelry stores /burning down their communities and rioting in mass??

Get with it Trog, they are burning up Facebook and Twitter as we speak.

 

[highland145]

Get with it Trog, they are buring up Facebook and Twitter as we speak.

So what costs more $$. Looting/rioting or F.B./T. servers going down under the barrage. Probably the latter.

 

[Keeper]

Get with it Trog, they are buring up Facebook and Twitter as we speak.

WELL PLAYED.... VERY well played. From such a tough lie too...

 

[Karl Agathon]

lol, you just entered the spidey zone

 

[schneiderguy]

Anyone else think that she would have been found guilty if she was ugly/fat? :hmm:

 

[SKORPI0]

???? Here in NY we are not allowed to take notes?
Hmmmm, or I wonder is that "Judge Decided"?
Cause we (the jury) asked both times and were told "NO".

Probably, the notes were for my "eyes only" and were kept locked when we left home. We were told not to compare notes and make prejudgements during our lunch break. To only take note of what was presented or any evidence shown during the trial. Not what was presented in the media or outside the court house. Not to think of "what if" scenarios. Closing arguments or comments between prosecution/defence were not to be taken as "fact or evidence". Had a lot of expert witnesses from both sides.. forensic etc.

Like I said earlier, the prosecution failed to provide evidence "without a reasonable doubt" in finding the person guilty. Tragic. D:

 

[Wreckem]

Served in a murder trial last July 2010, found the woman who killed her husband (12 stabs to body) for 2nd degree murder. Trial was 2 days, earned $17.20/day.

Judge explained to us to weigh what was presented by the prosecution/defense in the case and not use or emotions to make a verdict. Took notes during the trial and had some questions that were never made clear to me or presented that time. Had a heated debate between finding her guilty for 1st degree or 2nd degree. In the end we had to come out with a unanimous decision.

Hopefully Casey Anthony will look for the "real killers" soon. Caylee needs justice. D:

They allowed you to take notes? I ask because that is not typical. In most jurisdictions are not allowed to have anything in the jury box. You can make mental nots, but that doesn't work well with long trials. Juries almost always have to rely on the court record.

 

[Wreckem]

Well put. It goes back to common sense.
Didnt 6 of our peers award a grandmother a squillion dollars for putting HOT Micky D's coffee between her legs?
YES... A judge later reduced the award but 6 of our peers said:
"Yup, they right, its Micky D's fault..... Somehow. Dunno how, but they gotta pay".

McDonalds was just god damned stupid. The plaintiff originally offered to settle the case for $20k. McDonalds said $800. The fact was she was burned severely and McDonalds had previously settled other such cases for up to $500k. They shouldn't have low balled her because they would have saved a hell of a lot of money if they agreed to the $20k.

I will also add the mediator before the case went to trial thought $225,000 was fair.

And while the jury did award $2.8million, it was lowered to $650,000.

And during appeals the case was settled for an undisclosed amount but its assumed that the amount was closer to $225,000 than it was $650,000.

Finally, civil is NOT criminal. Preponderance of the evidence is no where near beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Keeper]

McDonalds was just god damned stupid. The plaintiff originally offered to settle the case for $20k. McDonalds said $800. The fact was she was burned severely and McDonalds had previously settled other such cases for up to $500k. They shouldn't have low balled her because they would have saved a hell of a lot of money if they agreed to the $20k.

I will also add the mediator before the case went to trial thought $225,000 was fair.

And while the jury did award $2.8million, it was lowered to $650,000.

And during appeals the case was settled for an undisclosed amount but its assumed that the amount was closer to $225,000 than it was $650,000.

Finally, civil is NOT criminal. Preponderance of the evidence is no where near beyond a reasonable doubt.

All true and yes, I get the difference tween Civil and criminal and level/burden of proof.
My point was more common sense SHOULD have ruled in that case.
You put hot coffee tween your legs and got burned....... And the issue is?
Granny would not have gotten a DIME if I were on that 6 person jury.
But 6 of our peers said nope....2.5 mil.... Makes ya cringe dont it?
Why so familiar with the case?
Closely involved? (God, I hope it wasnt your grandma LOL)
An advocate of common sense coming back to our world?
A lawyer?
Or a guy with lots of free time who googled the internet for all that info? :sneaky:

Cheers!! (Where the hell is my beer smiley??????)

 

[woolfe9999]

What? I thought Florida was full of old people and Puerto Ricans.

And Jews. I blame the Jews.

 

[Keeper]

They allowed you to take notes? I ask because that is not typical. In most jurisdictions are not allowed to have anything in the jury box. You can make mental nots, but that doesn't work well with long trials. Juries almost always have to rely on the court record.

So its NOT Judge decided. Its Jurisdictions?
My 2 jury serves. ZERO in the box. Like you said.

 

[woolfe9999]

This verdict is pathetic. The defense narrative was that Caylee accidentally drowned in a pool and that the father decided to cover up the accidental death by dumping the body and making it look like a murder. As to why Casey repeatedly lied to the police - she had emotional problems from being abused. And the jury bought it...

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Am I the only one that finds this girl totally unattractive?

 

[JEDIYoda]

She has done a lot of time already served.

She is completely free of the legal system now.

YES!! 4 minor charges all carrying a year in prison maximum for each charge.
Even if the Judges does give her 4 years in jail she has been in jail since 2008......according to a law professor she will be released with time served.

 

[marincounty]

All true and yes, I get the difference tween Civil and criminal and level/burden of proof.
My point was more common sense SHOULD have ruled in that case.
You put hot coffee tween your legs and got burned....... And the issue is?
Granny would not have gotten a DIME if I were on that 6 person jury.
But 6 of our peers said nope....2.5 mil.... Makes ya cringe dont it?
Why so familiar with the case?
Closely involved? (God, I hope it wasnt your grandma LOL)
An advocate of common sense coming back to our world?
A lawyer?
Or a guy with lots of free time who googled the internet for all that info? :sneaky:

Cheers!! (Where the hell is my beer smiley??????)

McDonalds had already paid out to several people burned by their too hot coffee. And after this case McDonalds reduced the temperature of their coffee. Thank god you weren't on the jury.

 

[Wreckem]

All true and yes, I get the difference tween Civil and criminal and level/burden of proof.
My point was more common sense SHOULD have ruled in that case.
You put hot coffee tween your legs and got burned....... And the issue is?
Granny would not have gotten a DIME if I were on that 6 person jury.
But 6 of our peers said nope....2.5 mil.... Makes ya cringe dont it?
Why so familiar with the case?
Closely involved? (God, I hope it wasnt your grandma LOL)
An advocate of common sense coming back to our world?
A lawyer?
Or a guy with lots of free time who googled the internet for all that info? :sneaky:

Cheers!! (Where the hell is my beer smiley??????)

Law student who is annoyed that people(not you) usually cite this case for as a reason for tort reform but fail to mention other facts about the case. Compensatory damages were $160k, the jury punished McDonald's because the evidence in the case led them to believe McDonalds didn't care and had continued activities that led to burns of 700+ people.

McDonalds should have
1. hired better counsel
2. settled
3. hired better counsel

If they had better counsel,
1. they would have settled
2. they would have better argued the case(that serving at the temp was actually less than industry standards.
3. not had their witness admit the coffee burned the plaintiff and they had more important problems than possible burns.

If they had done 1 or 2 & 3, the verdict wouldn't have happened. Successive cases plaintiffs lost because the defendants lawyers actually did their jobs.

 

[Wreckem]

McDonalds had already paid out to several people burned by their too hot coffee. And after this case McDonalds reduced the temperature of their coffee. Thank god you weren't on the jury.

Actually they haven't and industry standards are more than that. McDonalds still brew between 174-194, and some places brew at over 200. McDonald's lawyers at the time just didn't do their homework.

We now have warning labels and better packaging. Thats all the came out of the original hot coffee case. The subsequent ones more or less all got tossed.

 

[Fern]

The jury decision is disappointing, to say the least.

It seems to me this comes down to the definition of "reasonable doubt". I think the jury demonstrated an unreasonable definition of reasonable doubt. It's been noted that with the popularity of TV shows like "CSI" and "Criminal Minds" jurers have developed unrealistic expectations regarding forensic evidense. IMO, this case is a very strong example of that.

The law doesn't even require that a body be found to prosecute for murder, to act as though you can't convict without a determination of cause of death is therefor irrational and opens up all types of opportunity for murder w/o conviction - just destroy or hide the remains until no forensic evidence exists and you go free.

Case Anthony had opportunity, motive and means. IMO those need to be weighed more heavily than this jury apparently did.

I can see a reluctance to convict on 1st degree murder. Googling "break neck" and "chloroform" looks to be an indication premeditation, but it can be reasonably argued the chloroform was intended to be used only to sedate the child and in so doing an overdose was accidentally administered.

How the jury didn't convict for child abuse or manslaughter is inexplicable. Clearly the child did not die of natural causes. If (and that's a big IF) the child did die of some accident, not seeking assistance from 911 and then dumping the body like trash to conceal it is an unmistakable badge of guilt IMO. Then there's the lying and utter lack of remorse too.

This jury demanded too much. I see no reasonable way that a lack of known cause of death can be held up as a perfect defense as they have apparently done.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

All true and yes, I get the difference tween Civil and criminal and level/burden of proof.
My point was more common sense SHOULD have ruled in that case.
You put hot coffee tween your legs and got burned....... And the issue is?
Granny would not have gotten a DIME if I were on that 6 person jury.
But 6 of our peers said nope....2.5 mil.... Makes ya cringe dont it?
Why so familiar with the case?
Closely involved? (God, I hope it wasnt your grandma LOL)
An advocate of common sense coming back to our world?
A lawyer?
Or a guy with lots of free time who googled the internet for all that info? :sneaky:

Cheers!! (Where the hell is my beer smiley??????)

HBO is currently airing a documentary about the organized campaign to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to the court system. It's called Hot Coffee, and not surprisingly, the McDonald's coffee case is the first example they review. I encourage you to watch this documentary sometime and learn that your presumptions about this this case are pretty much all wrong. McDonald's behavior was pretty outrageous, and while the jury acknowledged the woman was partially at fault for being dumb enough to put the coffee between her legs, they found McDonald's was at much greater fault. McDonald's not only allowed selling coffee that was dangerously hot (180 degrees), it required it, and there had been numerous prior complaints about injuries that McDonald's ignored. Thanks to this case with its punitive damages, McDonald's finally changed its policy.

If you were on that jury, having heard all the evidence (instead of the propagandized version spread by the anti-lawsuit campaign), my bet is you would have ruled the same way. Similarly, we can only hope that there is evidence in the Casey Anthony trial that we've missed due to sensationalistic media coverage, but the jury recognized as critical. I certainly thought she was guilty (and frankly still do), but I can admit I haven't heard the whole story and may be wrong.

 

[spidey07]

So is it OK for us to riot now? I thought that's what you're supposed to do when the verdict doesn't give "justice". Is it riot and lootin' time?

 

[Bowfinger]

The jury decision is disappointing, to say the least.

It seems to me this comes down to the definition of "reasonable doubt". I think the jury demonstrated an unreasonable definition of reasonable doubt. It's been noted that with the popularity of TV shows like "CSI" and "Criminal Minds" jurers have developed unrealistic expectations regarding forensic evidense. IMO, this case is a very strong example of that.

The law doesn't even require that a body be found to prosecute for murder, to act as though you can't convict without a determination of cause of death is therefor irrational and opens up all types of opportunity for murder w/o conviction - just destroy or hide the remains until no forensic evidence exists and you go free.

Case Anthony had opportunity, motive and means. IMO those need to be weighed more heavily than this jury apparently did.

I can see a reluctance to convict on 1st degree murder. Googling "break neck" and "chloroform" looks to be an indication premeditation, but it can be reasonably argued the chloroform was intended to be used only to sedate the child and in so doing an overdose was accidentally administered.

How the jury didn't convict for child abuse or manslaughter is inexplicable. Clearly the child did not die of natural causes. If (and that's a big IF) the child did die of some accident, not seeking assistance from 911 and then dumping the body like trash to conceal it is an unmistakable badge of guilt IMO. Then there's the lying and utter lack of remorse too.

This jury demanded too much. I see no reasonable way that a lack of known cause of death can be held up as a perfect defense as they have apparently done.

Fern

I'll be fascinated to hear the jury's reasoning in this case. Presumably there are exclusive (paid) interviews and book deals already in the works.