Come, come now, counselor!
She was presumed innocent and remains so unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction finds her guilty!
What you suggest is called a Scotch verdict [make mine Lagavulin!] which is recognized only in Scotland.
Perry
casey anthony got away with it
- Thread starter simon482
- Start date
She was presumed innocent and remains so unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction finds her guilty!
What you suggest is called a Scotch verdict [make mine Lagavulin!] which is recognized only in Scotland.
Perry
Well Perry perhaps mine was a second rate legal education but I'll stick by not guilty is not the same as you didn't do it.Come, come now, counselor!
She was presumed innocent and remains so unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction finds her guilty!
Not accurate.Our conviction rate is way lower. Although I believe we may inherited that appeal right from the Brits. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is applied way more stringently up here. There are counties in the US where the prosecutors have a 90% conviction rate - pretty scary.
Our conviction rate [last I looked at the national statistics] hovers at around 90%.
Reasonable doubt is a legal term that is defined and applied by the same standards.
And the Crown can appeal only on questions of law... though that can get very "tricky" at times because it is possible to frame "a question of fact" as "a question of law" in some circumstances.
Perry
Well, that may be true in a manner of speaking, but NOT in the manner of speaking as an attorney, counselor-at-law, barrister, solicitor, sargent, agent, Queen's Counsel, Proctor, etc.Well Perry perhaps mine was a second rate legal education but I'll stick by not guilty is not the same as you didn't do it.
Perry
It even goes beyond that. You likely don't need a unanimous jury in the civil court and a great deal more evidence is admissable in a civil case, plus you get the depos. Whole different process.Correct. The civil suit's burden of proof is based on a 'balance of probabilities' - you must tip the scale.
In a murder case, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty'.
I am not an expert on the pleas open to an accused in a US Court but in Canada, "innocent" is not one of the five pleas available to an accused.Well, that may be true in a manner of speaking, but NOT in the manner of speaking as an attorney, counselor-at-law, barrister, solicitor, sargent, agent, Queen's Counsel, Proctor, etc.
Perry
"innocent until proven guilty" is just a pleasant colloquial way of expressing where the burden of proof lies.
If you wanted to look at it in a really technical fashion, one the verdict is rendered, and the judge and jury are funtis, than the pleas become meaningless because the process which gives them life is over.
At that point, you are either convicted or not.
Perhaps in Canada Gpideal, but I've never heard that "moral certainty" thing in Court.Correct. The civil suit's burden of proof is based on a 'balance of probabilities' - you must tip the scale.
In a murder case, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty'.
"Reasonable Doubt" can be hard to get one's head around, but it is exactly that a reasonable doubt, it does not mean beyond the remotest centilla of a doubt.
As one well known definition runs: "It is not a mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which. . . . . leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
Not at all a "pleasant colloquial way" but -- for complex historical reasons dating back to Magna Carta -- a fundamental pillar of our legal system."innocent until proven guilty" is just a pleasant colloquial way of expressing where the burden of proof lies.
Perry
I am not sure they are complex, but the term no longer forms a functional part of crim pro.Not at all a "pleasant colloquial way" but -- for complex historical reasons dating back to Magna Carta -- a fundamental pillar of our legal system.
Perry
In fact the only places is appears in the Code appear to be the result of some recent bad, political drafting.
There is much more to the criminal justice system than just the Criminal Code, my friend...In fact the only places is appears in the Code appear to be the result of some recent bad, political drafting.
But let me put the issue to you this way: Suppose that "out of the blue" you are asked to appear on an identification line-up and some fool picks you and, as a result, you are charged with some heinous criminal offence. You plead not guilty and the Court acquits you... are you "innocent" or "not guilty"?
Perry
Last time I looked our conviction rates for violent crime hover below 50%. Statscan has these figures and if you actually take the time and look. Meanwhile US conviction rates hover well above 75% in most jurisdictions and are at 90% in a lot of the south.Not accurate.
Our conviction rate [last I looked at the national statistics] hovers at around 90%.
Reasonable doubt is a legal term that is defined and applied by the same standards.
And the Crown can appeal only on questions of law... though that can get very "tricky" at times because it is possible to frame "a question of fact" as "a question of law" in some circumstances.
Perry
Re the standard, it is naive and wrong to think that just because the same words (reasonable doubt) are used, that the standard is applied the same and that the content of the standard is the same. Or that the attitude of juries are the same for that matter. Close to 250 years of independent jurisprudence cannot result in the same meaning of those words.
This is my issue with the verdict. It seems to me as if jurors are not familiar with the idea that reasonable doubt must include a modicum of plausibility.Perhaps in Canada Gpideal, but I've never heard that "moral certainty" thing in Court.
"Reasonable Doubt" can be hard to get one's head around, but it is exactly that a reasonable doubt, it does not mean beyond the remotest centilla of a doubt.
As one well known definition runs: "It is not a mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which. . . . . leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
The alternate theories presented by the defense to create reasonable doubt in this case did not really have much merit and therefore did not or would not have for me created that reasonable doubt. Just saying that Caylee drowned in the pool and the family conspired to cover it up does not make it plausible when put into the context of what is actually known. That explanation just does not make the standard as far as I am concerned. If they had a piece of physical evidence which would have pointed to that possibility then maybe. As well as the argument that Casey was lieing because of some previous sexual abuse by her father and brother. The judge instructed the jury to disregard that, if that is ever really possible once introduced, as the defense did not prove that any of that actually occurred and therefore does not then explain Casey's lies. For me the prosecutions case while circumstantial has that feel of plausibility that the defense explanations did not.
Yes, I understand that the defense need not present evidence to substantiate their theory.The onus is on the prosecution to deliver evidence of a case that compels a jury to believe that the presumed innocent person is in fact, guilty.
The defence has no obligation to prove their case is plausible. They may also simply offer no defence. Doesn't mean the prosecutor has met their burden of proof to convince a jury.
However, with overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the defense obviously felt needed to be answered to their explanation fell short. If the prosecutions case was really without any merit the defense need not offer an explanations whatsoever, correct? The fact that they they tried to do that and failed only makes the prosecutions case seem stronger in my mind. What it did was highlight the inadequacies of the alternate theory and strengthened the case by comparison. Some explanations are just too absurd to bring up. But then not all jurors rely on the Razor, which the defense was counting on.
In that particular case, he would be both innocent and not guilty. There would be very little or no evidence linking him to the crime because he didn't do it. Casey Anthony is only "not guilty". Casey wasn't merely ID'd in a line-up (btw, do the courts still not recognize how profoundly inaccurate eye witnesses are?). She was charged and brought to trial, not on a whim, but on quite a bit of circumstantial evidence.There is much more to the criminal justice system than just the Criminal Code, my friend...
But let me put the issue to you this way: Suppose that "out of the blue" you are asked to appear on an identification line-up and some fool picks you and, as a result, you are charged with some heinous criminal offence. You plead not guilty and the Court acquits you... are you "innocent" or "not guilty"?
Perry
Casey is highly suspect and other people have been found guilty on similar circumstantial evidence.
Regardless, the legal system worked. People just have to deal with the outcome.
Perry, if it really were this way why when new evidence comes to light which conclusively proves that someone charged or God forbid convicted of a crime did not commit the same does the Prosecution always make it a point to state in Court that that State does not believe that the defendant committed the crime and is entirely without responsiblity for it if it.plead not guilty and the Court acquits you... are you "innocent" or "not guilty"?
Four years for the four counts of Lying to a Law Enforcement Officer. With time served and good behaviour credit she should be out of Jail at the end of the month or early next month.
UP DATED: Her release date is July 13.
UP DATED: Her release date is July 13.
Last edited:
The judge could have given her less than the maximum for each count or a concurrent sentence and she could have been out now.Four years for the four counts of Lying to a Law Enforcement Officer. With time served and good behaviour credit she should be out of Jail at the end of the month or early next month.
It would seem likely that this judge feels the same way about CA as the one he replaced, who was stunned by the verdict.
No offense taken rub.Dave, with all due respect, I think that you are simply being human and looking for reasons to justify your personal feeling that "she did it".
That is why Judges give specific instructions to the jury to ignore what they "feel" or even infer from a lack of something, and only decide based on the evidence presented.
From what I saw, and from what the jury saw, it was quite clear that the prosecution did not make a clear connection between the body, ANY cause of death and the accused.
Just because your kid's body turns up somewhere and you didn't grieve according to social norms does not mean you murdered your kid.
I am merely poking around for explanations. Everyone brings their life experiences to any issue and we are incapable of complete objectivity. Some would err on the side of caution in this case and require somewhat more stringent requirements of the prosecution than others would. Some likewise would afford the defense more leeway in the theory offered to explain the bizarre behaviour of their client.
Admittedly my background and training requires a higher standard to explain the behaviour of Casey Anthony and her family than the defense offered. To me the explanation is without merit and therefore does not deflect away from the theory of the prosecution but bolsters it in the absence of a sufficient explanation as to what happened to that little girl.
ETA This quote from one of the jurors "'If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be," to me indicates that the jurors were confused. The prosecution didn't do a good enough job of connecting the dots to show why she was guilty of at lest some of what she was charged with. Had they made a concise effort to show that her lack of care and concern for the child's well being led to her death it may have resulted in a different verdict on some of the counts.
True, but if your kid is found dumped in a swamp with duct tape around the head and you admit that you dumped her there, that goes way beyond abnormal grieving.Just because your kid's body turns up somewhere and you didn't grieve according to social norms does not mean you murdered your kid.
