[quote name='Dead of Knight']dmaul: Aren't you a PhD in criminal justice or a related field? Can you maybe share or post some links that explain what the prosecution's argument was and why it was so shitty that she was found not guilty?[/QUOTE]
I've finished my first year of law school and I can give you my opinion for what it's worth.
Here's a link to a slideshow of some of the major evidence that was presented (obviously its not an extensive list)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/slideshow/casey-anthony-trial-evidence-photos-13724467
Looking through it there's some clear problems. First off, what many people don't realize is that there are elements to every crime and each and every element must be proven in order to convict someone of the crime. Now, without actually looking up Florida's 1st degree premeditated murder statute I'll give you the most common elements of 1st degree premeditated murder. Common law murder typically has the elements of:
1) intentional-the person must actually mean to kill the other person
2) killing-self explanatory
3)of another-can't first degree murder yourself
4)with malice aforethought-this is where it is important to show the premeditation and the "guilty mind"
Most murder statutes are based on these elements with first degree murder having added elements such as either premeditation or that the murder occurs during the commission of another dangerous felony.
When juries are given a jury instruction is when they are basically instructed that they need to find all elements of the crime. Many, many appeals are based on the instructions given to the jury because how the judge interprets each side's request for jury instructions. Think of it like the judge makes decisions on the questions of law and the jury makes decisions on questions of fact. In this situation, the jury instruction is a question of law, how do the elements apply to this particular case.
Now, back to the evidence which was presented in the slides beforehand. Going through those its difficult to find the elements of this crime were satisfied. Particularly the malice aforethought and premeditation. In order to show this you would typically need to show some kind of "planning activity" that you planned on committing murder. From what I gather, their entire evidence of planning was based on an internet search for chloroform which was done prior to the murder. The only problem though is that there is no indication of who did the search or what the search was for.
Since we're on the topic of chloroform, if that was the method of murder as the prosecution contends, where is the evidence of the chloroform's use? There's no indication of where Casey got this chloroform and they never recovered any chloroform or evidence that chloroform had been used. The entire chloroform "theory" was based on this internet search. In my opinion that's a very sloppy way to present that theory to the jury. If there had been further evidence of chloroform's use or possession then it would have been stronger evidence but a computer search that may or may not have even been completed by the accused murder is not strong enough evidence to convict someone. How would Casey Anthony have had access to chloroform then? Too many questions.
Furthermore, evidence
was presented to contradict the assertion that the search was even intended for "chloroform" in the first place. Casey's mother, Cindy, testified that when she did the search she was actually intending to search for "chlorophyll" not "chloroform." Here's a little test you can do on your own. Go to google, make sure quicksearch is on and search for "chloro." Sure enough, the first suggested word is "chloroform" and next up is "chlorophyll."
Why am I spending so much time on the issue of "chloroform"? That'd be a good question for the prosecution because they spent even more time on it at the trial. It was weak, weak evidence that they continued to push as a clear indicator that Casey had planned this murder in advance. What other evidence did they present showing premeditation? Not a whole lot.
Now, just because she wasn't guilty of premeditated murder doesn't mean she didn't commit "lesser" murder such as manslaughter. Casey was charged with aggravated manslaughter in addition to 1st degree murder. The only problem though is that the prosecution focused so much on how her search of chloroform indicated premeditated murder that they didn't focus very much on Casey's
actual killing of her daughter.
They didn't provide much evidence at all for any alternate theories of how Caylee died. If they had gone through the trouble of charging her with aggravated manslaughter they should have at least provided an alternate theory of how the crime occurred to substantiate the charge.
My guess though is that they charged her with this thinking they could give the jury a "way out" if they didn't find her guilty of 1st degree murder. Basically it was a fallback plan for them in the event they didn't fully prove the 1st degree murder to the jury. Its not uncommon for this to occur in criminal trials but typically its supported by an alternate theory, complete with evidence, of how the crime may have occurred. As I see it, they didn't really bother with any of this evidence.
I feel my post has already gone on long enough and like I mentioned earlier, I've only completed 1 year of law school so I'm far from what you would call an expert but that's just some of my thoughts regarding the charges and the evidence, or lack thereof.
ing joke...[/QUOTE]
