Just watched the live feed of the Casey Anthony verdict. A story about the verdict is available here.
I did not watch much of the trial itself, but I did follow it closely in the news. I have to admit I was surprised by the verdict. I predicted to my trial advocacy class this morning that the jury would find her not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of manslaughter and child abuse. I was wrong about that!
I'd be interested in comments about the case, particularly the advocacy strategies chosen by both the prosecution and the defense, the professional responsibility issues raised during the trial, and some of the evidentiary decisions the state made (even if there had been a verdict of guilty, I'm not sure some of the forensic evidence would have survived appellate review). High-profile cases, as I've said before, lend themselves naturally to some great teaching moments and discussions in a law school classroom.
Big difference between overwhelming evidence and horrible facts. Somebody tell that to Nancy Grace. Overwhelming evidence wins criminal cases - even then it is never easy. This case did NOT have overwhelming evidence (far from it). With only horrible facts, the jury had doubts about attributing those facts to the defendant.
ReplyDeleteWRP