Back to CMA issues....

[klmno]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think it goes back to jury selection. I can't get past that. "There's no evidence that a crime was committed". Seriously? I am starting to think that it wasn't so much that the jury had no clue about dysfunctional families, but more like they related too much to dysfunctional familes and maybe they were thinking that "oh, I see what happened- there was family chaos one night, the child is dead the next day, someone tried to cover it up and hide it- what's the problem?- you can't prove who did it or what happened." Like they can see how a person could panic if a child dies (no matter how) and dump the body in a swamp and it's understandable if you didn't actually intend for the child to die. That's all I'm hearing from the jurors, the ones that are talking anyway. Maybe it's the culture in Fl- "this kind of stuff can happen, no big deal".

 

[DammitJanet]

Yeah...but the jury consultant was using the social media stuff to tell them how to look for the jurors too! And I still want to know...how do u become a stealth juror.

 

[klmno]

I don't know about a stealth juror- but clearly this was the defense's jury. I can't imagine the selction in Fl if this is the best the prosecution could come up with, too- I heard that the prosecution wasn't happy with the jury but they'd already used their- whatever it's called to throw a potential juror out during selection- so this is what they were left with.

 

[donna723]

"There's no evidence that a crime was committed".

This is the part that makes me so mad! What about the fact that a little girl who wasn't even three years old yet is dead? And her mother lied about her whereabouts for 31 days! And then her body is found with duct tape on her face, thrown away in a swamp like garbage? Sure sounds like a CRIME to me!!!

 

[DammitJanet]

I keep trying to figure out if a crime wasnt committed then why is Caylee dead. She didnt drag herself, two hefty bags and a laundry bag to the middle of the woods, stick duct tape over her mouth and then crawl inside the bags.

Casey could have probably gotten away with this if she had stuck her in one of those dozens of coolers I keep seeing in the parents garage and left her there for a few days. Simply said the little girl fell in and the lid trapped her. Or in the trunk of the car! Kids crawl in there.

 

[Nancy]

Janet don't throw tomatoes at me but you asked so here goes. Jury consultants are used all the time. Dr. Phil was a jury consultant and that's how Oprah met him because he was hired to help pick the jury in her "beef" case. husband has used them for some of his cases. Some attorneys also hire "shadow jurors" who sit in the courtroom and listen to the testimoney and tell the defense attorney what they are thinking so the attorney can get into the mind of the jurors. husband has hired people to act as jurors in a mock trial where they present the evidence and see the jurors reaction. They then adjust their case accordingly.

In the end jury consultants can only do so much because each side only gets so many peremtory challenges. They can't keep kicking people off the jury without cause. The judge often allows jurors on that either side would rather not have.

I think the bigger problem is the jury did not understand circumstantial cases and obviously had a misunderstanding of what evidence they needed. They were told not to leave their common sense in the courtroom but to take it into the jury room. I think the jurors need to be better prepared and be encouraged to ask qurstions. They are not encouraged to ask questions, in fact they are discouraged from doing that now.

Nancy

 

[klmno]

Like I eluded to before, the only thing I can come up with is that the jurors are more dysfunctional in their thinking than Cindy and George ever thought about being.

 

[DammitJanet]

Nancy...no tomatoes at all...thats why I asked you. I understand jury consultants and the mock juries and all that. I completely get that and I am all for it. I just kinda feel using the social media is almost like playing dirty pool. Or cheating of some sort. It just feels weird to me somehow...like someone was listening in on a phone conversation. Maybe I shouldnt feel that way. I guess it was because the woman who did it said it in the way she did...she had this mocking, snide affect to her voice when she said that "some of the people who were out there were obvious Casey haters" so she just disregarded their opinions. Okay...so you only listened to people who said what you wanted to hear? That makes so much sense!

Does your husband think that this particular jury had trouble with the instructions or is it that juries as a whole today are just more...shall we say...lacking in attention than folks used to be? Can he shed a bit of light on this or is he as confused as the rest of us...lol

 

[HaoZi]

I think the bigger problem is the jury did not understand circumstantial cases and obviously had a misunderstanding of what evidence they needed.

Have to agree, I think that was a huge part. Makes me wonder if they even get the difference between manner of death and cause of death, that cause does not need to be proven, and manner is determined by the M.E. (or coroner, in places that use that system).

whatever it's called to throw a potential juror out during selection

I believe strike for cause is the phrase you're looking for.

 

[Mattsmom277]

So over trying to figure out the CMA case. It's confusing and so emotional based, for good reason. It's just sad .

Regarding juries and evidence and reasonable doubt: I'm sure hoping that if my bio donor doesn't plead guilty that he chooses a jury trial and that I get people who understand beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering we have NO forensics, just a 40+ year history of major sexual abuse involving over a dozen known (other reluctant or unknowns) victims who at the time of offenses did not know each other and had no idea he had a history. Thus, common sense, total strangers don't somehow find each other and several generations of women just decide to point a finger. Common sense hopefully will turn up in the juries mind when the shrinks and therapists for all of us that we saw through the years testify to our work with them regarding the abuse. If I get a jury unwilling to look past forensics, one of Canada's worst sex offenders will be free to rape and molest more young women. The one thing we all know, he will never stop unless locked up or dead.

I'm curious about peoples opinions on the jury makeup and thought process in the CMA case to see if it is common approach to analyzing facts in deliberations, perhaps some insight into what to expect soon enough in a court room near to me.

 

[HaoZi]

So many inherent cultural differences between US and Canada, it would be difficult to really figure that out.

 

[donna723]

I think it's that "common sense" thing that really bothers me the most! Good old common sense should tell anybody that she killed that baby! What other logical explanation could there possibly be? Nothing else makes any sense at all. I watched just about every minute of that trial and I never saw one single thing that made me think it was anything other than cold blooded, calculated murder! And they discounted everything that George Anthony said because he may have stretched the truth about his relationship with that goofy woman! I thought that was understandable and forgivable, seeing as how his wife was sitting right there in the courtroom. I found the rest of his testmony to be very believable. The jury may have had the wrong impression about the circumstantial evidence and may have thought they needed hard evidence like DNA for a conviction. And where did they get the idea that they had to have an exact cause of death to be able to reach a Guilty verdict? The medical examiner ruled it a homicide. Did they not listen when it was explained to them? Why didn't they ask any questions? They couldn't possibly have gone over all that evidence in such a short time. I still get the impression that they rushed through it, didn't bother to ask questions to clarify things they weren't sure of, they were all in a hurry to get out of there, and it may have been the idea of one person and the rest just went along to be done with it so they could go home.

 

[Nancy]

Janet he said he didn;t hear the judge's instructions but if the judge told them that circumstantial evidence is just as important as other evidence they should not have been confused. He believes the whole social media thing is so new that we are just learning how it affects cases but that it is free advertising for the attorney, a free way for them to get inside the heads of the jurors. Beofre you had to wonder what the jury was thinking or hire shadow jurors, now you just read the social media. Since they saw the backlash of George's apparent lying about the affair they were able to go after him harder and make him look like he was involved. The sad thing is that apparently the jurors cared more about George having an affair and lying about it than they did about Casey lying about her 2 year old child being dead. They didn't believe George molested Casey they said so I would like to know then why Casey would have covered up for George since the theory was that she was afarid of him because of the abuse. Take away the abuse and you have no reason for a mom covering up the fact that her daughter accidently drowned in a pool.

Perhaps they should not have cameras in the courtroom. It seems like no longer are cases decided on the evidence but by who is a better actor.

Haozi I believe you are thinking of peremptory challenge. Cause to strike is what the judge uses to kick someone off for cause. Peremptory challenge if the freebies each side gets.

Nancy

 

[DDD]

So far I haven't read or heard that any prosecuting attorney's are up in arms at the verdict..except those who are now working for networks. Most of the newspapers in Florida have interviewed attorney's who are not Defense Attorneys and they all say either "the case was not adequately proven" or "the Constitution we have allowing citizens to serve on juries is the finest system in the world" or " the decision is made and there are hundreds of cases waiting to go to trail including the murder of children". I think the Orlando law enforcement representatives and the members of the Florida Bar have demonstrated awesome support for our system. Have to admit I almost fell over when Nancy Grace (I think) suggested that we need to have "professional jurors" who understand the law. Yikes. DDD

 

[DammitJanet]

well this has taught me one thing, no more pleading guilty to anything. Go to a jury trial at all costs.

 

[DDD]

Did you hear about the convenience clerk who "looks like" Casey in some far off State...not Florida? A female customer yelled she was a "baby killer" and then chased her car down and rammed it multiple times. Yikes I expect things like that are going to continue to happen. The lady evidently survived it and her attacker was arrested. Wow. DDD

 

[klmno]

I agree, Donna. If they had struggled over evidence and come out with less than 1st degree, or even a hung jury, I could accept it a lot easier. Even if the jurors who are speaking gave more believable explanations, it would be easier.

Well, now I have another question. I just heard that her attny filed an appeal for her on the charges for lying. In this state, a judge doesn't have to give credit for time served. Do they have to in Fl? The basis of my question is that I wonder if it's legally possible in Fl for an appellate judge to decide that, if Casey loses her appeal, NOT to give that credit for time served and sentence her to 3-4 years in prison (keeping in mind these are misdemeanor charges and heard by different judges). Like I mentioned, if difficult child had appealled any of his convictions, a judge can give a harsher sentence, including not giving credit for time served.

Did you hear that the attnys for the civil case are now asking for a mental health evaluation? The results of that one should be interesting. For someone who's just immature (choke), she sure is getting a lot of MH evaluations. I wonder if they are trying to get that done before she's released from jail.

 

[klmno]

I also wonder if any sanctions can be placed on an attny for appealing charges he's already admitted guilt to. Isn't that similar to making false claims or taking something to court fraudulently or something?

 

[Malika]

(To all fellow CAT addicts )
On the judge's instructions to the jury, my sense is that everyone, he included, kind of assumed (dangerous) that the case was open and shut, and that Casey would be found guilty in short order. He seemed to me to bend over backwards to be scrupulously fair and objective in presenting the case and his instructions.
I do agree that some of the statements of the jurors seem incoherent. In terms of the lack of direct evidence tying Casey specifically to the death they have a point and some legal experts have agreed with the decision. HOW was one to determine whether Casey was guilty of murder or of manslaughter, in the complete absence of any direct evidence? That was a real conundrum for them - but in the case the fairest they could have done would have been to find guilty of manslaughter. I also agree that there seems to have been some confusion about the nature and weight of circumstantial evidence and the judge gave no specific pointers about that, as I recall. An error of judgement?
Talking of errors of judgement, Baez seems genuinely to think Casey was innocent and that she is a good and admirable person....

 

[Malika]

(To all fellow CAT addicts )
On the judge's instructions to the jury, my sense is that everyone, he included, kind of assumed (dangerous) that the case was open and shut, and that Casey would be found guilty in short order. He seemed to me to bend over backwards to be scrupulously fair and objective in presenting the case and in his instructions.
I do agree that some of the statements of the jurors seem incoherent. In terms of the lack of direct evidence tying Casey specifically to the death they have a point and some legal experts have agreed with the decision. HOW was one to determine whether Casey was guilty of murder or of manslaughter, in the complete absence of any direct evidence as to manner and cause of death? That was a real conundrum for them - but in the case the fairest they could have done would have been to find guilty of manslaughter. I also agree that there seems to have been some confusion about the nature and weight of circumstantial evidence and the judge gave no specific pointers about that, as I recall. An error of judgement?
Talking of errors of judgement, Baez seems genuinely to think Casey was innocent and that she is a good and admirable person....