Keeping Up With Casey Who?

UPDATE #2!
August 24, 11:40 AM

InSession has just announced that they will be carrying the hearing live at 9 AM tomorrow. It also appears that there is a possibility it will be live streamed by some TV stations.

UPDATE!
August 23, 7:08 PM

Casey Who?'s probation must be served. In a decision just released by the Appellate Court, it states that Judge Strickland's oral order for probation takes precedence over the written order. In addition it says that

The petitioner and her lawyers were well aware that her probationary placement was not to begin until her release from confinement. The petitioner may not, under these circumstances, take advantage of the administrative error of the Department of Corrections.

*****

I have to admit my real life has now become more interesting than tracking down Ms. Casey's every movement. Was she in Ohio? I don't really care. Where is she in Orlando? I don't care. Will she make money from the infamy her trial has given her? As of now, I don't see the money rolling in for her and that pleases me. As for her family, the same applies. It's a good thing I've never been a Dr. Phil fan. Whatever they have told him can stay off my DVR. I don't really have any interest in what they have to say. The verdict is in and we have to live with it.

What does interest me is the probation situation. Yesterday, the State Attorney General filed a reply to the defense motion. State's Assistant Attorney Frank George joined in the Attorney General's reply. The Attorney General's reply pretty much followed along with Judge Perry's ruling. Attorney Lisabeth Fryer just filed a reply. It said much the same as the original motion. All we have to do is wait for the Appellate Court to make its ruling.

Proof positive the media interest is waning in this case is the fact that there has been very little publicity about the hearing on Thursday where the State will be asking to be repaid by Ms. Casey based on her convictions for lying to Law Enforcement and causing the massive investigation. There has been virtually no mention of the hearing and have not heard of any live feeds that will be available.

So, it will be interesting to see if anyone actually streams it. I won't know. I'll be away for the hearing and will only get to read about it later! After three years of living and breathing this case, it's good to move on.

As for the civil cases, I will be following up on them. However, these cases tend to move at a snail's pace, and that suits me just fine right now. Let Ms. Who? sink into the background, forgotten for the most part. Let little Caylee linger in our hearts, forever.

Source:
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Check out the current news for all the documents in the appeal.

Casey Anthony, Will She Serve Probation?

UPDATE!

August 18, 1:46 PM EDT

Jean Casarez on InSesson just reported that the paper copy of the motion has been filed and the case will now move forward.

*****

Okay, I took a week off to go on my first real vacation in seven years. Once we arrived at our destination, we had a wonderful time. However, due to lost airline connections in both directions, we ended up spending two days extra NOT having a good time! There was a sweltering day and night in a Houston hotel whose air conditioning wasn't quite up to snuff, without our luggage and a fresh change of clothing. To avoid the same situation on the way home, we spent a day shuttling to the airport and spending the night shuffling from plane to plane to plane making tight connections. We ended up "visiting" in three states which were not on our itinerary.

I heard about Judge Perry's order concerning her probation and caught a bit of news about it. Unfortunately, my husband banned my laptop from the trip for good cause. Thanks, Sprocket, for posting the news. Now that I've had a chance to rest up a bit, I can also report on the defense reply to the Appellate Court. As of now, the defense reply has only been filed electronically and we all know that it has to be filed on paper. Somebody will have to drive over to Daytona to file the hard copy.

Listening to Jean Casarez on InSession right now, she is pointing out that nobody has filed a stay on the order that Casey Anthony appear for probation on or before August 26.

During the original hearing, Lisbeth Fryer argued vehemently about Judge Strickland's bias and that he had recused himself and had no jurisdiction over the fraud case. She argued double jeopardy.

She also argued that putting Casey on probation in Orange County would put herself and others in danger. At the time, I can recall that she kept throwing the responsibility to the State to report the scrivener's error that caused Casey to be on probation while in protective custody.

In his order, Judge Perry replied to all her concerns:

1. He stated that the Court had jurisdiction. He stated (omitting specific legal citations) that

It is axiomatic that oral pronouncements control over clerical errors. The court has the authority to correct its judgment. An order is rendered, valid and binding, when orally given. It may be corrected at any time to reflect what the court had in fact done.

2. As to violation of double jeopardy, Perry stated that

This case does not involve additional punishment proscribed by the double jeopardy clause nor does it involve a punitive effect by requiring the Defendant to serve probation twice. The Defendant was in jail and unable to meet the goals and requirements of the probationary sentence. The Defendant could not comply with the standard thirteen conditions of probation while incarcerated on a pending charge.

3. As to the defense's responsibility to report the error to the Court, Perry was very clear.

In this case, the State, defense counsel, and the Defendant all knew what the announced intent of the Court was as to when the Defendant's probation was to begin... To permit this error to continue would in fact turn a clerical error into a game cautioned against in the Bozza case...

4. Due process was briefly mentioned.

The Court does not address the issue of the alleged violation of the Defendant's right to due process because the defense did not allege how it was violated.

5. To be sure that the defense understood the issue of Duty to the Court, Perry stated in part that

Finally, this Court would like to address the issue of what duty does an attorney, an officer of the court, owe to our system of justice to see that the lawful orders of the court are followed. The defense acknowledged in court that Mr. Baez knew about the error, but contended that he did not have any obligation to inform the court... While ignorance of the contents of a court order is one thing, the failure to abide by that order and the failure to notify the court of a known scrivener's error in the order may be a violation of an attorney's duty of candor. To additionally seek to use a scrivener's error to achieve an end that was against the court's intent, especially where both parties had argued the issue of when probation should commence, strikes a the very foundation of our justice system...

The duty of candor is simply not a rule of fine etiquette, but is the gold standard that all officers of the court - especially attorneys - must live by if we are to ensure the public's trust and faith in our justice system... While "(z)ealous advocacy is the cornerstone of good lawyering and the bedrock of a just legal system...zeal cannot give way to unprofessionalism" and noncompliance with court orders.

Perry then went on to recommend that the defense refer to The Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.

As I am writing this, the Orlando Sentinel is reporting that a Bar Complaint against Jose Baez on this very issue.

6. Judge Perry did address the issue of Casey's safety. He ordered her address not be disclosed and cited an article in the Orlando Sentinel which reported that Casey was the most hated person in America.

The Appellate Court in Daytona is still waiting for a paper copy of the defense reply to be provided. At this moment, WESH is reporting that the court will hear the appeal prior to Casey's reporting date.

The appeal is written by Lisabeth Fryer, who argued the motion in court on the 6th. It is very long and has many legal references. There is a great deal of bashing for Judge Stan Strickland. It is a longer version of what I posted about that hearing. In addition, she criticized Judge Perry.

...the trial court engages in three pages of of moralizing about the responsibility of the defense counsel in candor to the tribunal, as if somehow this entire 'mess' was the responsibility of the defense, rather than a vindictive act by a glaringly biased judge... For the record, this was not a case in which the defense was in possession of information that neither the court, nor the State of Florida lacked. Instead, defense counsel only learned of the probation informally, whereas the State of Florida received formal notice of the commencement of probation... Further, the former disqualified judge actually signed the original order which established probation while the Defendant was awaiting trial on a different set of charges. That the court feels it necessary to chastise the defense (and the defense alone -- by name) for not bringing this matter to the court's attention is, at best, misplaced.

Right now, I'm waiting to see if Frank George files a response to this motion, once it is officially filed.

Keep tuned for the latest turn in this twisted case!

Casey Anthony Probation Hearing

To quote Judge Belvin Perry, "This is a mess." Jose Baez, Frank George, and Lizabeth Fryer duked it out during the hearing this morning's hearing.

Baez started with a Ms. Finnigan the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Supervisor.

She received Casey Anthony case January 25, 2010. It was was entered in data base and assigned to a probation officer. On January 26, the intake supervisor received the case and which indicated that Ms. Anthony was sentenced to one year probation. The supervisor noted she was in jail, awaiting trial on another case. Her case was assigned to an officer who located Casey in the jail, Natalie Lewis went to the jail to instruct Casey on the terms of her probation.

She didn't recall if it was publicized in the news. She completed an intake packet. There was a special condition, that she have no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga.

They monitored the case and checked each month that she was in jail. They checked her records for any problems in the jail because inmates can get arrested for crimes in the jail. During that time, Casey did not commit any other crimes in jail and there were no problems that prevented her release from probation.

Ms. Finnigan went on to say that any time a case is in jail, she decides if the case should be tolled (delayed) or not. Since Casey had another case, she decided not to toll it. She based her decision on the Department of Probation guidelines. She's been in that position for 28 years.

Usually, probation is not given on an indefinite basis. There is no provision in the policy for probation to be served "someday".

Ms. Finnigan stated that Casey was treated as any other probationer.

Baez then went on to mention the media coverage being a problem if she were to serve probation. Baez asked what precautions would they take to see she was treated like any other probationer.

Ms. Finnigan didn't know how to answer that question. She said that it would be possible she would have to and would be concerned for the safety of her probation officers as well, she is ALWAYS concerned about the safty of her people. She pointed out it would be a unique challenge.

Baez pointed out that Casey made restitution. The cost of supervision was waived by the department since she was in custody, not by Judge Strickland.

January 24, 2011, Casey was dismissed from probation and they sent her a form letter. A letter was also sent to the victim, Amy Huizenga. She also said that if Casey had written a letter of apology, it would have violated her probation.

Frank George then spoke for the state. He asked what the purpose of probation was. Ms. Finnigan to protect the community, as it is a community-based service. It is not intended to watch people in custody.

Baez objected to George's next question. Judge Perry allowed him to ask it even though Baez had a point. Ms. Finnigan indicated that the purpose is to supervise those already released from custody and assist them into reentry to a law-abiding life style. It's purpose is to help them assimilate back into the community.

George then asked if it is not a normal practice to supervise a probationer while in custody?

Ms. Finnigan indicated that it happens on occasion when there are subsequent dockets. They could have additional cases and be on probation for the first one.

George then asked it it was a requirement of probation to report every 30 days? Yes Was it a normal condition to pay the cost of supervision? Yes (We know Casey did neither.)

According to Ms. Finnigan, after Feb. 2, 2010, nobody went out to the jail to supervisor her. They merely checked to see if she was still incarcerated.

George then asked if probation could begin at an unspecific time? The witnesses indicated that it was true, especially because the release date from prison can change. George also got her to agree that the words "upon release" have meaning. Those cases resolve themselves at different points in time. It's not so confusing or spectulative that you wouldn't know when probation would begin. While the last question confused Ms. Finnigan a bit, she did indicate that there is a mechanism for them to know if probationer has reported within 30 days of release.

George also asked her if parolees are seen outside of their monthly reporting dates. Finnigan stated that parolees are classified as maximum, medium, or minimum and that decides how often their parole officer sees them in the field.

Costs was waived because Casey was incarcerated. There would be no way for her to violate terms of probation unless she attacked someone or committed some sort of crime in jail. Or contacted the victim.

Baez then brought out that at time of probation, she wasn't under sentence, but she was under possibility of violation by her office.

Judge Perry then asked about the issue of tolling. Did she ever contact Judge Strickland about that? She said she hadn't. He also asked her if she was familiar with a number of cases (Jones (2007) Bradley (1998), Savage, (?). Ms. Finnigan said that she was only familiar with Savage.

With the conclusion of testimony by the witness, Lisabeth Fryer made a number of arguments to the judge. She spoke as fast as usual, but managed to get the gist of her arguments. She mentioned the Judicial Cannon 3B2, a direct slap at Judge Strickland.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

Fryer continued by saying the issue is moot on several grounds. First was that the issue came from previously disqualified judge. (I would tend to disagree with that. Judge Strickland was the judge who accepted the plea deal and did the sentencing in question. He did NOT recuse himself from the fraud case.)

She also cited lack of jurisdiction because the court loses jurisdiction 30 days after the decision.

The sua sponte decision was written by a disqualified judge. His oral order was not followed up in writing with a motion concerning the issue.

The State Attorney unofficially stated she had served her time.

Ms. Fryer then went on to cite case law at a rapid pace and I missed a lot of her references. Such items as the 1ssue of double jeopardy (most of which dealt with erroneous jail sentences). separation of powers, and so on. One remarkable comment was that, "The disqualified judge's displeasure is not a problem for the judiciary." Another issue was that The Department of Probation did consider if it could be tolled and decided it did not.

Fryer went on by stating that Casey's acquittal could not affect her sentencing. There was no previous attempt by the State to challenge the decision. Judge Strickland was in the media and is vindictive. Casey was not serving a sentence and there was no certainty to when she would be released. It would be inappropriate to toll based on DOC policies.

Finally, Judge Perry asked if she reviewed the sentencing transcript? Fryer said she didn't, but she saw the video.

Perry handed out transcripts of the hearing to everyone and referred to page 5 of transcript, lines 16-23. He pointed out that long before he was recused, Strickland reserved decision. Mr. Baez felt strongly that Casey would be acquitted and Judge Strickland said he would withhold, follow by one year probation when released.

Perry asked her what obligation, if any, would he or she have once he or she knew that the written pronouncement differs from the oral pronouncement, what responsibility does he or she have to inform the court? What obligation does the defense have to notify the court? Can a judge, on his own volition, correct a scriveners error to give the sentence that he announced in open court which no one appealed for whatever reason?

Perry went on to the issue of double jeopardy (Brown v State) and pointed out to Ms. Fryer that a probation order is NOT a sentence. A sentence can only been given with the adjudication of guilt.

Perry then stressed this is not a cut and dried situation. Casey was not serving a sentence. She was given time served. He also noted that when people are erroneously placed on probation while being incarcerated they really can't function on probation. (All Casey had to do was not attack anybody or contact Amy. That's not real-world probation.)

Perry then indicated that the judge's oral pronouncement was not followed. They knew she would complete one year upon release.

Ms. Fryer said that the defense WAS aware of the situation, but it wasn't their burden. It was up to the State to prove it. (Notice, she never answered the earlier question about the defense's responsibility to report errors to the court, considering they are all Officers of the Court.)

Then, Ms. Fryer blasted Judge Strickland's bias and his recent appearance in the media.

Judge Perry disagreed. Strickland imposed sentence and probation BEFORE that all came up. He also asked if there is a time limitation to correct the scrivener's issue?

Fryer avoided answering that question as well and simply indicated that Strickland no longer had jurisdiction over that case. She then rambled on that Casey hadn't violated probation, she had completed probation, and so on and so on ending with the statement that Strickland made a correction that she serve a second period of probation.

Perry again asked the question that, as an Officer of the Court, doesn't counsel have the responsibility to report errors? Fryer again threw the responsibility back to the State. He then asked if the State even knew she was serving probation. Then, he went back to the oral order in court by Judge Strickland. "It's a mess, go home Ms. Frye!"

Perry said that her strongest point is that of jurisdiction and the ability to amend the scrivener's error. Ms. Fryer stated, "This is done, this is over." Perry kept saying that probation is not a sentence! She was given time served and probation. Perry again pointed out it is NOT a sentence. (Yes, we were listening to them repeat themselves by this point.)

Judge Perry then opined that it is a legal maze

Frank George then spoke. Here is the short version of the points he made:

It's bad public policy to allow people to serve probation in jail. This supervision was in name only. She was in PC, her only obligation was not to attack anybody or escape.

Another jurisdiction says she has successfully served probation.

They discussed time frame for correcting a scrivener's error. Judge Perry brought up the case(Drumright v Fl)

Gave more legal citations.

Judge Strickland was merely correcting a scrivener's error.

Oral pronouncements trump written.

George ended by saying they would leave the decision to the court.

Perry then asked George when the State of Florida learn the written pronouncement was different from the oral pronouncement. When did they learn she had been placed on probation?

George said he learned of it when Judge Strickland corrected the error. When that case was resolved, he received no documentation about the probation.

Perry then asked his position on administrative probation?

George said that he had none and mentioned that there may not even be a statutory provision for administrative probation.

Judge Perry said that he didn't know.

Ms. Fryer said they have wide latitude and that administrative probation was the only practical solution. She went on to state that they were back to Casey having to serve probation TWICE!

I believe Judge Perry pointed out that time waiting in detention was release, she was not serving a sentence. (Actually she was, retroactively.)

Ms. Fryer brought up that if Casey were to have to serve probation, if there would be an opportunity to discuss the difficulties in dealing with her "unique" situation. Perry agreed.

At that point, the hearing was finished. Judge Perry indicated he could find no similar situation in Florida law and would have to do a nationwide search.

According to InSession, we shouldn't expect a decision from Judge Perry until late next week. He is taking over Judge Adams docket for the present and has to deal with his cases.

Stay tuned to T&T for any developments on this situation!

Watch the hearing:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: SENTENCING

Ritanita is on a much needed short vacation, and I have attempted to fill her shoes in covering the sentencing. As you all know, for the last three years she has lived and breathed this case and did a herculean job in covering it.

I am lucky. I get up in time before court has started. I'm listening to the live feed from WESH. At first, all they are showing is a view from the hallway outside the courtroom.

It's 5:29 am PT. The only camera live on my computer is the view of the hallway on the 23rd floor. I just saw one of the defense team walk by the hallway camera. I see court personnel, an occasional officer come into camera view.

Now on the WESH live feed, we have commentary.

OCSO is getting ready for the possibility that she will be released.

I did not stay up late last night to hear the one juror who spoke on Nightline.

I see Mason, George. Oh lord. WESH is replaying the reading of verdicts.

Now the talking heads are saying she could have the cost of the trail charged against her.

It's unclear from the statute how much she might owe.

Anthony is inside the courtroom. Here hair is now hanging down loose.

My trial watching friend, LinZbee tells me Juror #3, Ms. Ford spoke on Nightline last night. (I haven't watched the show yet.) Ms. Ford felt that one could not convict if you didn't know how someone died or the motive.

I totally disagree. You don't need to know a motive. You don't need to know how someone died. It's my opinion that often times people don't realize that behavior is evidence, powerful evidence.

On WESH, there are some talking heads discussing the “courage” of these jurors. I'm personally sick of hearing talking heads say these types of things.

Judge Perry takes the bench. The case is called by the clerk.

JP: Let the record reflect the defendant is present along with her counsel and states attorneys. (snip) Are both sides ready to proceed? (snip) Mr. Mason before we proceed, you had asked me to rule on a motion for mistrial?

The defense withdrawals their motion for mistrial.

JP: The defendant is before the court for counts four, five, and six, and legal cause not to proceed with sentencing?

(I think JP at this point, is corrected by the defense that there is also a count seven.)

Only legal cause... (I miss this.) ... no legal cause not to proceed with sentencing.

JP: Would the state care to present any manners relative to aggravation..

LDB: No not on that issue your honor.

JP: Any issue concerning any other matters?

LDB: Your honor, yesterday, day I filed a motion to tax special costs of investigation and prosecution....

Crap. My feed went bad just as LDB started talking. It’s taking me forever to get a feed.

When my feed comes back, Drane Burdick is gone and defense attorney Lisabeth Fryer is arguing prior cases for sentencing.

LF: It’s our assertion that the Hammel (sp?) case is temporal....

Judge Perry asks Ms. Fryer about count number four, lying about her employment. Fryer is arguing that all four instances were part of a single act, so she should be charged for only one act. Judge Perry reviews the case law the defense provided.

Many legal pundits think she will only be sentenced as a single act and will walk free from court today.

JP: One last question. Are you saying that, Ms. Anthony did not have time to pause, reflect, and form a new criminal intent for each one of those four separate acts?

LF: Yes. your honor. That under Hammell there has to be a separation of time, place, or interview.

JP: Response from the State of Florida?

Only provided... LDB, cites other case law.

LDB: It is the states position there is a temporal break between each lies. (snip) During the course over three separate statements. (snip) 1 am 4 am and 1 pm. (snip) Each of the lies are mater to the issue investigated. (snip) each were intended to mislead law enforcement. (To give an example, LDB says) We see this with separate sex acts acted upon a child at the same time, are charged separately.

LDB: Given the fact that there were multiple statements over 12 hours, it is the position of the State that these separate acts do not violate separate double jeopardy.

Drane Burdick brings up another case to the judge.

JP: Does your client wish to say anything before imposing sentence?

CM: No your honor.

JP: The court will make the following finding concerning the defense motion, to bar imposition of sentence, these four state counts as to violating double jeopardy..

JP: Count four. Basically dealt with the following conduct. It is alleged that the defendant was employed at Universal Studios to 2008. This information was given pursuant to the investigation to a missing person’s report. That information caused law enforcement to go to Universal Studios to expend law enforcement resources to determine that in fact Ms. Anthony did not in fact work at Universal.

JP: Count five is, Ms. Anthony informed authorities that she had left her child Caylee Marie Anthoy, at the the Sawgrass apartments with a babysitter. Which caused law enforcement again, as a result of a missing person report, to develop and follow varous leads trying to locate this babysitter commonly known as “Zanny."

JP: Count 6 again, dealt with the fact that she had informed two employees of Universal Studios "Jeff Hopkins" and "Juliet Lewis" of the disappearance of Caylee Marie Anthony.

JP: Count 7, (she) indicated to law enforcement that she had received a call and spoke to Caylee Marie Anthony on July 15th, 2008, at approximately 12 pm, thus causing law enforcement to devote extensive resources.

JP: As a result of those four separate and distinct lies, law enforcement expended a great deal of time, energy and manpower looking for young Caylee Marie Anthony. This search for her went on from July through December, over several months trying to find Caylee Marie Anthony.

JP: Four distinct separate lies. Just as the jury spoke loud and clear on counts one, two and three, they also spoke on loud and clear on counts four, five, six and seven. There being no legal cause shown (that the court) should not impose sentence, and the court having previously judge you to be guilty in the counts four, five, six, seven, I will sentence you to one year in Orange County jail, (for each count) imposing $1,000 fine on each count. All for counts to run consecutively. (snip) Consecutive to each other, giving credit for the time previously served. Mr. Baez, Mr. Mason, we are going to spend some time this morning figuring out her time for credit served, and it’s going to take us probably about an hour to sort it out. (snip) ...because of the previous sentences she has been given.

JP: With the good time and gain time, depending on the preliminary figures, sometime early August, Maybe late July, but I can’t say that until I first determine time served, and the jail applies their good time and gain time. So if you want to wait around, or we can communicate that with you, or if you have a different figure.

JP: I will reserve jurisdiction for 60 days, to determine cost of prosecution and investigation.

So, Casey Anthony gets four years for the four guilty counts.

LDB: I have advised a minimum of 30, so any time after that.

JP: Mason?

(I can’t hear him.)

JP: I’m trying to give you a date now. The week of August 15th, I will not be around. The week of the 22nd, I’m involved in an evidentiary hearing. I have time on the 25th an 26th. Depending on how long, I can fit you in on the week of the 29th, but I’ll have to fit you in. but I’m going to take over Judge Adams division since he’s leaving at the end of the month. I have a week or August 1st, but would have to fit you into that division's regular work.

They are still trying to figure out a return date.

JP: So when would you like the hearing folks?

LDB: Any of those dates would be acceptable.

I'm not clear, but I think they settled on Thursday the 25th of August.

Judge Perry rules she can waive her appearance. Mason waves her appearance. Will impose statutory court costs.

Judge Perry addresses Anthony.

JP: You have a right to appeal the judgement and sentence provided you file a notice with the court. If you can’t afford an attorney to assist in your appeal, (snip) ...do you wish to appeal?

JB: If we could have a moment your honor. (So he can confer to see what Anthony wants to do.)

JP: You may.

JB: We would like to reserve our right to make our decision at a later time.

JP: Does she have the financial where with all, if she decides to appeal to pay for appellate counsel?

I miss the full extent of this answer.

JP: If she decided to do that, make sure she fills out insolvency with the court and bring that, so counsel can be appointed. (snip) If she does not file a timely notice of appeal then she forfeits a right for appeal, but it will be YOUR responsibility to file appropriate appellate paperwork (more that I miss.) with the court.

JP: It will be your responsibility before you are relieved of your responsibility of this case to have those documents filed. Are the any other matters on behalf....any other matters behalf of the state? On behalf of the defense?

Both sides answer no.

JP: Okay. Court will be in recess.

She could be released later this month or early in August.But today is not the day that she walks out of the courtroom.

CNN's blog reported: "Anthony has remained stoic during this portion of the court hearing. She is conferring with her other attorneys as the judge hands down the sentence. But as she prepared to exit the courtroom Casey Anthony let out a tiny smile."

Later, a court representative came out and addressed the media. Her time served had been calculated and Casey Anthony will be released from jail on July 13th, 2011.

July 13th, almost 2 years to the day from the time that the world became aware that little Caylee had already been missing a month.

A Reflection on the Jury Verdict by Sprocket
I was in shock like everyone else when the verdicts were read. The jury obviously did not see the case as the prosecution presented it. But what did they really think?

We finally got to hear from one of the jurors, Juror #3, Jennifer Ford who spoke on Nightline. If you listen to Jennifer, she states that you cannot convict someone of murder if you don't know the cause of death or have a motive for the murder. She stated that the prosecution did not provide the jury with those facts. She also stated that she did not believe the defense case. On the Nightline show, she completely sidestepped the evidence of the duct tape on Caylee's skull. She never addressed it. She also stated she didn't know what to think about the chloroform. She basically didn't know about that.

After hearing a short clip of Jennifer speak, here are my thoughts.

Like lie detection expert EYES FOR LIES, I was blown away that the jury totally discounted the defense case. That even though the defense in their opening statement presented to the jury that this was an accident, that the defendant was at the home and involved in an accident with her daughter, they totally discounted that when considering a verdict.

I think this jury was totally taken in by the CSI effect. They were unable to make any type of conclusion about Casey Anthony's post-incident behavior and wanted all the evidence tied up for them in a neat package. In my opinion, that's what the CSI effect is. They wanted to know when she died, where she died and how she died before they were willing to convict. It shows us a jury that is unable to analyze evidentiary behavior critically, and come to a conclusion about it. This jury also rejected the prosecution's motive that was presented to them. I believe they rejected it because they didn't understand it.

Even though Casey Anthony lied to every person in her immediate orbit, law enforcement officers, the general public and beyond about having a job, where she was doing what when, having a "Zanny the nanny" and a kidnapping, that behavior by Casey Anthony was rejected by the jury as having any weight as evidence that a crime had been committed. They basically said, Casey Anthony's post incident behavior means nothing without a motive or cause of death.

Even though the prosecution presented strong evidence that there was a dead body and high traces of chloroform in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, they still could not come to the conclusion that a dead body had been placed inside it. Even though the prosecution presented powerful evidence that three pieces of duct tape were attached to the child's skull, mandible and hair, the jury did not see that as evidence that a crime had taken place. Many of us are wondering what person in their right mind could think that how and where little Caylee ended up, in plastic bags, in a swam, with duct tape wrapped around her head was the result of an "accident?" To me, this tells me that this juror, and most likely the rest of the jurors were unable to connect the dots and put the pieces of evidence together.

When you have jurors that are unable to make reasonable conclusions about post-incident behavior and powerful scientific evidence this is the type of verdict you get.

I also believe that some of the blame has to rest on the shoulders of the prosecutors, who I do think did an excellent job presenting the evidence. Is it possible that the prosecution team, so sure of their understanding of the evidence and what it would prove, had a bit of tunnel vision that the evidence could only be interpreted one way? Because I did not see all of the prosecution's closing arguments I do not know if the prosecution spent any time addressing the "unknown" issues to the jury, or presented compelling arguments refuting the defense theory of an accident.

I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson case. The defense theory proposed that OJ Simpson was framed by the LAPD. There was absolutely no evidence to support that, but they hammered home that possibility. According to former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in his book Outrage, stated that in closing arguments Marsha Clark spent about two sentences in her entire closing argument on the defense theory of a frame up. That's it. The prosecution was so certain of their evidence proving guilt, they didn't think it was necessary to spend any time refuting in arguments the defense theory.

As like ritanita said in her last entry, I don't think I wasted any of my time following this case. With every case we follow, there is something to be learned from the experience. I've learned quite a bit about Florida law during this case thank's to the open courtrooms and Florida's "Sunshine Laws." This case also reaffirmed my belief that, regardless of what evidence is presented, you can never predict was a jury will do (or an appellate court for that matter), because juries will surprise you. This jury certainly did.

Postscript. I highly recommend reading an excellent analysis of Casey Anthony's behavior over at or fellow blogger Valhall's site, The Hinky Meter. Although it was written over a year ago, it's spot on in identifying Casey as an "Eraser" killer, like author Marilee Strong outlines in her book, Erased.

Did the CSI effect sway this jury?