Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Would the Casey Anthony jury have been called ”Stupid”, etc had they came back in ten(10) hours with a guilty verdict?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26829points) July 9th, 2011

As the circus rolls on with the coverage, you hear interviewees, and sound bites of people calling the jury cowards, shameful, idiots, stupid, lazy, and worse. Many feel that because the jury did not deliberate for days and weeks, that they didn’t do much. That had they took longer there would have been a guilty verdict or at least a mistrial to take her back to court where guilty verdict would have came. I wonder, if the jury would have taken that much time or shorter and game back with guilty on all counts would anyone think the jury was lazy, stupid, rushed their job, etc?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

9 Answers

Hibernate's avatar

Like I said .. easier trials toked more time [ weeks or months ] .

The pressure from the press made them act fast . I don’t think too many would have said they were stupid by declaring her guilty .

jaytkay's avatar

Oooops, updating, I changed my answer because I went on a tangent about the not-guilty verdict.

No, they would not have been called stupid. Nancy Grace has been vilifying Casey Anthony for two years, the kind of people who judge a case from sensational TV shows would only be satisfied with a guilty verdict and execution.

marinelife's avatar

No, of course not. The blood lust of the masses would have been appeased.

filmfann's avatar

We are not the jury. The jury is given the evidence presented by both sides, as approved by the judge and the law. We are often given other information they do not have. They can only rule on what they see.
One of my former bosses was a jurior on a trial of Huey Newton. The guy was guilty as can be, but my boss said the jury was never presented a lot of the evidence that was all over the media. He was still convinced the entire case was a sham, and I finally came to the decision that he had spent more time with it, so perhaps I should cut him some slack.

john65pennington's avatar

In my many years of trials in criminal courts and dealing with jurors, I have discovered that a short jury deliberation can go either way. I have only lost one criminal court trial, simply because a big snow storm was on the way and school was letting out early. The jury contained 80% women with their kids in school. They found my defendant not guilty, simply because of wanting to pick up their children. One juror told me this. My defendant was beyond guilty, but the jury stated it was a property theft case and the business got its riding lawnmowers back and all appeared okay with them.

A jury can be unpredictable. A short deliberation, normally means a guilty verdict.

This Casey Anthony case was like a pan of scrambled eggs. There was no direct evidence to associate the mother with the death of her child.

This case is not over. Too many witnesses lied on the jury stand and the case is still unsolved.

The police and District Attorneys Office did an excellent job in their investigations. The proof was just not there for a conviction.

filmfann's avatar

As someone who, I admit, didn’t follow this case, can you tell me how the witnesses lied?
Also, how did the defense justify the duct tape on Kaylee’s mouth?

jaytkay's avatar

@filmfann Here is a defense witness Witness refutes duct tape as murder weapon

regarding the not guilty verdict, I think it was the prosecution’s fault. They came up with an extremely detailed story. It was just one possible story to fit the evidence.

Then they asked 12 normal people to buy that the story, 100%, with no reasonable doubt. And they asked those people to have Anthony killed for that story.

Not gonna happen.

If they had gone with aggravated manslaughter alone, I think she would have been convicted. The murder charge overcomplicated the jury’s job.

jerv's avatar

I think they would’ve got the same reaction from a different crowd complaining that they ruined/took someone’s life based on hyperbole and speculation as opposed to hard evidence.

filmfann's avatar

A friend of mine is a lawyer in the Alameda County District Attorneys office. Just before the trial for the BART shooting, I asked him if he was involved in the case.
He said he wasn’t, but he told me how he would handle it.
He said he would discredit anyone who was there. No ones story matches the video. Everyone remembers things differently.
He would then present himself as the only one whose story fits.
So, even though he wasn’t there, you can believe him, rather than people who saw it, or the video, which was incomplete, or didn’t tell the whole story.
That seems remarkably arrogant to me.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther