Reasonable doubts in the Casey Anthony trial? - Kurland, National Law Journal

Reasonable doubts in the Casey Anthony trial?
Adam H. Kurland, The National Law Journal
July 26, 2011

Excerpt:

When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

The Casey Anthony trial was not the first high-profile trial tried in a central Florida courtroom in which an infamous defendant charged with perpetrating horrible crimes against a child was, in the words of a reporter covering the trial, able to "squeeze through the door of reasonable doubt." The other trial to which I refer is Florida v. Gettys; that fictional trial in Gainesville, Fla., takes place in the opening and closing scenes of the semi-cult classic The Devil's Advocate. I will resist the temptation to take the parallels of the two cases to the next level. Nancy Grace, commenting on the evening of the Anthony verdict perhaps unwittingly did take the comparisons to the next level, when she told her national television audience something to the effect that "somewhere the devil is dancing."

This summer, I had the pleasure of teaching an evidence course at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. The summer session started just as the Anthony trial was about to start. Although the case had been in the news since 2008, I really had not focused on it — although I recall clicking the cable remote looking for a ballgame, and hearing several blaring references to "tot mom" that did not appear to be a term of endearment.

From an evidence-class standpoint, the Anthony case was quite interesting, even apart from the tabloid fascination with the cover-girl-beauty defendant, and the ghastly death of the doe-eyed adorable child. The case also raised several fascinating questions of substantive criminal law, procedure and trial tactics, all areas of academic interest to me.

More: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

mom_in_il wrote:"In Casey's case, the prosecution clearly provided more than enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of some form of murder."

Very well written article. Unfortunately even if the jury were to read it, would unlikely understand that he as tactfully as possible concluded that they are idiots.

I would have respectfully disagreed with the verdict, but it would have been easier to stomach if there was evidence of a longer, more careful and thoughtful deliberation.

This is what sticks in my craw. You cannot call the 10 1/2 hours spent by the jury 'deliberation'. There was nothing deliberate about their final judgement except their obvious desire to go home.