Did our Justice System Fail?

In trying to reconcile how a jury could acquit Casey Anthony of capital murder, manslaughter and aggravated child endangerment today, I was quickly reminded of the OJ Simpson trial.  While the cases had similar outcomes, they were much different cases from a legal perspective and the jury verdicts were surely arrived at for much different reasons.

Although Simpson truly had the "dream team" of defense lawyers, the jury likely decided based on emotion and celebrity.  It was the first trial of its kind and was so high profile that it even made the judge famous.  The OJ Simpson trial also leaned heavily on forensic evidence.  In the end, the jury was more impressed with Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Barry Scheck, Robert Kardashian and Robert Shapiro than it was with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.  In fact, it famously fell for Cochran's line, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."  In short, the Simpson trial was mostly about style- as the prosecution appeared to have much of the substance (and evidence) to get a conviction.

The Casey Anthony trial was much different.  Everyone, including me, was convinced she did it, including the prosecutors, the public, tv personalities and pretty much anyone you asked on the street.  The fact of the matter is that Casey Anthony may very well have caused the death of Cayley Anthony.  But, the Anthony prosecution, unlike in the Simpson trial, did not have the evidence to prove it.  Instead, an overly confident prosecution team seemed to think that if you throw out enough circumstantial evidence you can prove a capital murder case.  Unfortunately, they were unable to explain (much less prove beyond a reasonable doubt) the cause, manner or date of death.  It was clear that the prosecution believed that this was such a heinous case that they didn't need to exactly connect the dots and that the jury's emotions would lead them to a conviction.  Our judicial system is not built that way, nor should it be.  If it were, we would have the potential for OJ Simpsons to go free every day.

It has been said often over the past few days (and many times over our 220 year history) that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be found guilty.  That is the bedrock of our criminal justice system and it, unfortunately at times, produces verdicts such as those in the Casey Anthony trial.  But individual rights guide our legal system and are the basis upon which our Constitution was founded.  And trading those individual rights in order to get a conviction is not something we, as a society, should strive for.  The uniqueness of our criminal justice system and emphasis on protection of individual rights is what has made our country the greatest in history.

It should also be noted that the Casey Anthony defense team didn't necessarily do a great job in its defense of Casey Anthony.  It came up with conflicting theories and introduced information that had little to do with guilt or innocence despite the fact that it had no legal obligation to come up with any theory or evidence as the burden was 100% on the prosecution.  As an example, in its opening statement the defense promised to show evidence that it was an accidental death.  In its closing, the defense argued that the prosecution lied, cheated, made up evidence and didn't prove their case.  In many cases, having a conflicting defense strategy would be the death knell for a defendant (no pun intended).  In this case, the "shotgun approach" only served to emphasize the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  

So, while many of us believe that Casey Anthony did something to her daughter, today the United States criminal justice system worked.  As reprehensible as it may seem that someone could hurt a child, our legal system's first job is to ensure that only facts, evidence and, most importantly, the criminal legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are presented.  Our system is not built upon retribution, an "eye for an eye" or even any emotional basis.  To allow any of these things to enter our legal system would pollute it forever.  

While we cannot question the outcome of this case because we don't know what the jurors discussed, heard or believed, what we can take exception with is a defense attorney who says, "there are no winners today", and then ten minutes later has a party at a restaurant across the street from the courthouse.  The defendant's acquittal was hardly a celebratory event.  At the end of the day a little girl is still dead and the callousness that was shown by Casey Anthony during the 31 days that her daughter was missing was immediately brought to mind when I heard Baez's comment and then heard of the party.  How people can have so little respect is unfathomable to me.

So, while many continue to believe in the guilt of Casey Anthony, we should not forget that justice was served.  As a result, we must all accept the consequences of living in the freest society in the history of the world.  I, for one, would not trade our justice system for any other.