Many TV shows are covering the Casey Anthony case, and while I can follow the case, I can't follow the TV analysis of this case. Even the most learned legal and psychological experts are clueless. The analysis of the Casey Anthony case has been confused, disjointed, and flawed. Some get a few of the relevant points and issues, but all have failed to put it all together. The only way to analyze this case is to apply an intellectual legal analysis to the evidence. All of the experts on TV have approached the case from other than a non-legal perspective. Cognitive therapy teaches us there are different ways of interpreting the same facts, occurrences, and observations. That is what many have mistakenly done in this case to Casey Anthony as they both judge her prior actions and her behavior in Court.
The evidence is far from conclusive on her guilt. The evidence clearly does prove that Casey Anthony: (i) is a liar, (2) a despicable human being; (3) illegally and immorally transported the body of her dead daughter in her car and illegally and immorally disposed of it; (4) lied and covered up her daughter's death; and, (5) had no remorse or concern for the death of her daughter. This is all sensational but circumstantial. It is the type of evidence [because it is circumstantial, not because it is heinous (even though it is)] one reads about in books where a defendant is wrongfully accused. I forget the book, but think To Kill a Mockingbird was such a book. (I am not sure of this.)
I am not saying that Casey Anthony is wrongfully accused. That is not the relevant inquiry from a legal stand point. The relevant inquiry is whether the prosecution met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. All the evidence, as morally and psychologically compelling as it is, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves a lot of thing which indite Casey Anthony as a person, including her morals, mental health, intelligence, compassion and love for her daughter, etc.
A defendant is allowed to present an alternate theory of the crime. That is what Jose Baez is going to do, and that is why he gave the opening he did. He wanted to give the jury a hint of that alternate theory so Casey Anthony wouldn't be convicted in the minds of the jury before closing argument.
At closing argument, the defense attorney will base his defense on the law, as applied to the evidence admitted at trial which bears directly on proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. More to the point, he will point out the law, and the lack of evidence which was offered by the prosecution which proves that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
He is going to get up and claim that all the evidence presented does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves Casey Anthony transported the dead body of her daughter in her car, disposed of the body, lied about it to investigators, did not show remorse about the death of her daughter, etc. One explanation could be is that Casey Anthony is a sexual abuse survivor. Another is that she is a psychopath, Another is that she is a killer. The reason does not matter in a Court of Law. It matters to us as caring human beings, but not in a Court of Law. Casey Anthony does not need to prove the reason. The prosecution has to prove that Casey Anthony behaved in this manner because she killed her daughter. The prosecution can not use this evidence to prove that she killed her daughter, because that is "bootstrapping."
All that evidence is also consistent with an alternate theory of the case, which is that of an accidental drowning or other cause of death (other than Casey Anthony's killing her daughter), but then, when confronted with the death of her daughter, behaved in an incomprehensible manner, immoral manner, dishonest manner, etc (as evidenced by her behavior subsequent to the death). Casey Anthony does not have to prove this alternate theory. The prosecution has to disprove it, and disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the danger of proving a case by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very damming, and often defendants are convicted on it alone. That is the main reason many innocent defendants are wrongfully convicted. Circumstantial evidence is very damning until the truth actually become known.
None of the prosecution's evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and Casey Anthony does not need to take the stand to prove her alternate theory, and will probably not take the stand.
You will see the defense case come together in closing arguments, and you will see Jose Baez do an excellent job. Casey Anthony may well be acquitted. She may have been proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of being a despicable human being, and perhaps guilty of crimes like improper disposal of a corpse, lying to police, etc. But she will not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing her daughter. Whether the jury will convict her depends on their ability to follow the law, or whether the jury will ignore the law and convict her on the basis of being who and what she is (a despicable lying human being.)
Update: Written at the moment when the defense is in the middle of closing argument and recessed for lunch. There is much speculation as to the reason for the delay in resuming, and some of the commentary touched on the very issue I raised two hours in an e-mail to my friend. Here is the issue:
The Judge ruled that there could be no discussion in closing arguments[by the defense, prosecutionexplaining Casey's bizarre behaviour and lies after Kaylee had "gone missing" since there was no evidence at trial of such abuse.
But didn't the prosecution "open the door" when it asked Casey's father whether he ever abused his daughter? Since a jury is free to believe, in whole or in part, or disbelieve in totality any witness, can't they disbelieve his denial and thus believe there was abuse? Even more compelling, there was unrelated but contradictory evidence and testimony by the father and alleged mistress as to whether the father had had an affair (while Kaylee was missing) and therefore, isn't his credibility an issue for the jury to decide? And if they find him less then credible on one issue, can't they believe him to be less than credible on all other issues?
So isn't this error by the Judge to exclude this issue from closing arguments, as a strictly legal point? Is it reversible error?
Postscript:
I wrote my analysis towards the beginning of the trial, when everyone wanted to condemn Casey Anthony and her attorney. I received substantial criticism. If you don't know by now, she was found not guilty, and in a very short period of time. I always maintained that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she was guilty of murder. My only question was whether the jury would follow the law or succumb to the psychological passion. The quick not guilty verdict was clear evidence that my analysis was correct. By the way, I do believe she was guilty, I just don't believe that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are the people who have the courage to stand up to the wrong of our country and make it right!
I continue to get hits on this page from all over the world. As long as I do, I will keep this page up, but I think this story is and should be over. Yet, the media keeps covering this story. She was acquitted over a week ago, and already released. Yet the analysis continues. My analysis seems to have been correct, except possibly for one point. The issue is, was there method to the madness of the defense counsel's strategy, or just lucky madness? Either way, they jury saw what I saw which was that they needed to keep an open mind as the evidence, as damning as it was, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed any specific crime.
Now, there is the issue of whether the state legislatures should enact "Caylee's law (I am not sure of the spelling) which, might, depending on the state and what is enacted, require, among other things, a parent to report a missing or deceased child within a required period of time, for example, a death of a child, within one hour. Once again, a law which seems to legislate common sense and seem to have the best of intentions has its devil in the details. Like the drug sentencing guidelines, the implementation of such a law may create more harm than the very few "Casey Anthony" cases that occur in this world.
For example, will we imprison a grieving parent, for a felony, for failing to report the death of their child within an hour, regardless of the circumstances? What if the parent is out of their mind with grief and is crying, praying, and/or notifying loved ones? What if there is not issue of the parent's conduct, such as when the death was long overdue to a disease such as cancer and was expected and witnessed by others?
We are so obsessed with one case when, every day, thousands (if not more) children are abused, neglected, and every year, hundreds, if not thousands, if nameless children die of neglect and abuse, at the hands of parents, foster parents, third parties, etc., with no press coverage and often no police intervention whatsoever. Are we going to over react to one case, which has already received an inordinate amount of media attention, when every minute of every day, children throughout the world are dying needlessly from starvation, disease, etc?
Link Back to Main Page of My Blog
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/
E-Mail Me
Casey Anthony Casey Anthony who people hate
The evidence is far from conclusive on her guilt. The evidence clearly does prove that Casey Anthony: (i) is a liar, (2) a despicable human being; (3) illegally and immorally transported the body of her dead daughter in her car and illegally and immorally disposed of it; (4) lied and covered up her daughter's death; and, (5) had no remorse or concern for the death of her daughter. This is all sensational but circumstantial. It is the type of evidence [because it is circumstantial, not because it is heinous (even though it is)] one reads about in books where a defendant is wrongfully accused. I forget the book, but think To Kill a Mockingbird was such a book. (I am not sure of this.)
I am not saying that Casey Anthony is wrongfully accused. That is not the relevant inquiry from a legal stand point. The relevant inquiry is whether the prosecution met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. All the evidence, as morally and psychologically compelling as it is, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves a lot of thing which indite Casey Anthony as a person, including her morals, mental health, intelligence, compassion and love for her daughter, etc.
A defendant is allowed to present an alternate theory of the crime. That is what Jose Baez is going to do, and that is why he gave the opening he did. He wanted to give the jury a hint of that alternate theory so Casey Anthony wouldn't be convicted in the minds of the jury before closing argument.
At closing argument, the defense attorney will base his defense on the law, as applied to the evidence admitted at trial which bears directly on proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. More to the point, he will point out the law, and the lack of evidence which was offered by the prosecution which proves that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
He is going to get up and claim that all the evidence presented does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves Casey Anthony transported the dead body of her daughter in her car, disposed of the body, lied about it to investigators, did not show remorse about the death of her daughter, etc. One explanation could be is that Casey Anthony is a sexual abuse survivor. Another is that she is a psychopath, Another is that she is a killer. The reason does not matter in a Court of Law. It matters to us as caring human beings, but not in a Court of Law. Casey Anthony does not need to prove the reason. The prosecution has to prove that Casey Anthony behaved in this manner because she killed her daughter. The prosecution can not use this evidence to prove that she killed her daughter, because that is "bootstrapping."
All that evidence is also consistent with an alternate theory of the case, which is that of an accidental drowning or other cause of death (other than Casey Anthony's killing her daughter), but then, when confronted with the death of her daughter, behaved in an incomprehensible manner, immoral manner, dishonest manner, etc (as evidenced by her behavior subsequent to the death). Casey Anthony does not have to prove this alternate theory. The prosecution has to disprove it, and disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the danger of proving a case by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very damming, and often defendants are convicted on it alone. That is the main reason many innocent defendants are wrongfully convicted. Circumstantial evidence is very damning until the truth actually become known.
None of the prosecution's evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and Casey Anthony does not need to take the stand to prove her alternate theory, and will probably not take the stand.
You will see the defense case come together in closing arguments, and you will see Jose Baez do an excellent job. Casey Anthony may well be acquitted. She may have been proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of being a despicable human being, and perhaps guilty of crimes like improper disposal of a corpse, lying to police, etc. But she will not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing her daughter. Whether the jury will convict her depends on their ability to follow the law, or whether the jury will ignore the law and convict her on the basis of being who and what she is (a despicable lying human being.)
Update: Written at the moment when the defense is in the middle of closing argument and recessed for lunch. There is much speculation as to the reason for the delay in resuming, and some of the commentary touched on the very issue I raised two hours in an e-mail to my friend. Here is the issue:
The Judge ruled that there could be no discussion in closing arguments[by the defense, prosecutionexplaining Casey's bizarre behaviour and lies after Kaylee had "gone missing" since there was no evidence at trial of such abuse.
But didn't the prosecution "open the door" when it asked Casey's father whether he ever abused his daughter? Since a jury is free to believe, in whole or in part, or disbelieve in totality any witness, can't they disbelieve his denial and thus believe there was abuse? Even more compelling, there was unrelated but contradictory evidence and testimony by the father and alleged mistress as to whether the father had had an affair (while Kaylee was missing) and therefore, isn't his credibility an issue for the jury to decide? And if they find him less then credible on one issue, can't they believe him to be less than credible on all other issues?
So isn't this error by the Judge to exclude this issue from closing arguments, as a strictly legal point? Is it reversible error?
Postscript:
I wrote my analysis towards the beginning of the trial, when everyone wanted to condemn Casey Anthony and her attorney. I received substantial criticism. If you don't know by now, she was found not guilty, and in a very short period of time. I always maintained that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she was guilty of murder. My only question was whether the jury would follow the law or succumb to the psychological passion. The quick not guilty verdict was clear evidence that my analysis was correct. By the way, I do believe she was guilty, I just don't believe that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are the people who have the courage to stand up to the wrong of our country and make it right!
Second Postscript:
I continue to get hits on this page from all over the world. As long as I do, I will keep this page up, but I think this story is and should be over. Yet, the media keeps covering this story. She was acquitted over a week ago, and already released. Yet the analysis continues. My analysis seems to have been correct, except possibly for one point. The issue is, was there method to the madness of the defense counsel's strategy, or just lucky madness? Either way, they jury saw what I saw which was that they needed to keep an open mind as the evidence, as damning as it was, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed any specific crime.
Now, there is the issue of whether the state legislatures should enact "Caylee's law (I am not sure of the spelling) which, might, depending on the state and what is enacted, require, among other things, a parent to report a missing or deceased child within a required period of time, for example, a death of a child, within one hour. Once again, a law which seems to legislate common sense and seem to have the best of intentions has its devil in the details. Like the drug sentencing guidelines, the implementation of such a law may create more harm than the very few "Casey Anthony" cases that occur in this world.
For example, will we imprison a grieving parent, for a felony, for failing to report the death of their child within an hour, regardless of the circumstances? What if the parent is out of their mind with grief and is crying, praying, and/or notifying loved ones? What if there is not issue of the parent's conduct, such as when the death was long overdue to a disease such as cancer and was expected and witnessed by others?
We are so obsessed with one case when, every day, thousands (if not more) children are abused, neglected, and every year, hundreds, if not thousands, if nameless children die of neglect and abuse, at the hands of parents, foster parents, third parties, etc., with no press coverage and often no police intervention whatsoever. Are we going to over react to one case, which has already received an inordinate amount of media attention, when every minute of every day, children throughout the world are dying needlessly from starvation, disease, etc?
Link Back to Main Page of My Blog
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/
E-Mail Me
Casey Anthony Casey Anthony who people hate
I hate Casey Anthony! I did find your article very interesting. I want to learn more from this legal prespective.
ReplyDeleteBeing an Obama-supporting Democrat, I assume that you support apparent underdogs across the board, as a general rule. That being said, please learn to spell names of the underdogs in your blog correctly, e.g. Jose Baez. I like Bias, though - excellent misnomer!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the spelling mistake, which, while inexcusable, was the result of the spell checker which substituted a known word for an unknown word.
ReplyDeleteAs far as supporting the underdogs, it depends on whether the "underdog" is worthy of support.
As far as Casey Anthony, I don't support her. I will never understand or like her actions. Unfortunately, her being a bad person and probably guilty of a heinous crime does not mean that in a Court of law she will be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a specific crime.
Great Job!
ReplyDeleteYou should really appear as an expert lawyer on this case. You're legal point of views are very different, yet they seem very knowledgeable and correct. The perspective you have on convicting Casey Anthony of murder definitely is worth reading and learning about.
P.S. to everyone. It is kind of hard to post a comment. You may have to click on Preview and then post it. I had to.
At first, I didn't understand your blog, and what little I did understand, seemed totally wrong. But as the trial has progressed, and I have heard the commentary on it, what you blogged seems to be very accurate and correct. It will be interesting to see what the defense argues in closing, and how closely it compares with what you predicted. That will be the true test of either your skill or the defense incompetence (which they have been attacked for.)
ReplyDeleteWhat is up with what happened today? Any idea?
ReplyDeleteI have no real knowledge of why the trial was cancelled today, why the record was sealed, etc. There is some speculation thatone of the attorneys may be in trouble for a discovery violation, but the Judge doesn't want to get reversedby excluding evidence which the defense want to put on. I would be purely guessing by saying that the defense wants to do something which the Judge thinks is improper, and may be considering a sanction against the defesne, which could be a fine or exclusion of evidence, and wants to write an oppinion (he had a private conversation with the Court reporter which presumably was to ask for an immediate copy of the transcript.) Again, totally guessing, perhaps the Judge is so fed up with the defense he is going to do sanction them somehow and wants to have an oppinion or decision as he is concerned with an appeal in the event of a conviction. But this is a TOTAL guess.
ReplyDeleteDavid M. Ginsberg
One thing which is very consistent about the coverage of the Casey Anthony trial is that Nancy Grace is an absolute biased moron. She is 100% media entertainer and has ceased being a lawyer. As far as being an entertainer, she is the type of media entertainer that used to be described as a yellow journalist. She is always, always on an extremist for the side of the prosecution, regardless of any questions of guilt of innocence. She presumes everyone is abolutely guilty and anyone raising any issues or questions as to the guilt of the accused is out of their mind. Her analysis is non-existent, and her questions are loaded and presume facts and conclusions which assume the guilt of the accused.
ReplyDeleteThe Judge ruled that there could be no discussion in closing arguments[by the defense, prosecution] relating to the statements made and issues raised by Jose Baez relating to sexual abuse of Casey by her father explaining Casey's bizarre behaviour and lies after Kaylee had "gone missing" since there was no evidence at trial of such abuse.
ReplyDeleteBut didn't the prosecution "open the door" when it asked Casey's father whether he ever abused his daughter? Since a jury is free to believe, in whole or in part, or disbelieve in totality any witness, can't they disbelieve his denial and thus believe there was abuse? Even more compelling, there was unrelated but contradictory evidence and testimony by the father and alleged mistress as to whether the father had had an affair (while Kaylee was missing) and therefore, isn't his credibility an issue for the jury to decide? And if they find him less then credible on one issue, can't they believe him to be less than credible on all other issues?
So isn't this error by the Judge to exclude this issue from closing arguments, as a strictly legal point? Is it reversible error?
David M. Ginsberg
I think you are right about what you said above about this being error on the part of the Juge. Given it is a capital case, probably reversable error, but I don't know, as I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. Judges get away with a lot more in civil cases, even where the stakes are tremendous, which is a shame. I admire your analysis as I have read your profile which indicates you do primarily complex commercial and business transactions, internationally. You are a truly knowledgeable, experienced and intellectual lawyer.
ReplyDeleteIt is to bad that the Judge's preclusion order will not allow your analysis to be tested, as Baez can't argue his alternate theory.
I also think that in general, Baez was not as good as the prosecutors were. They shone towards the end (after you wrote your analysis) and Baez sort of tanked, like when he last examined the father. But there was no way for you to predict this.
I 100% agree with you in that she will probably be convicted on the basis of the moral outrage and "smoke and mirrors" of the evidence, but as a matter of law, there was, unfortunately, insufficient evidence to convict her given the standard and burden.
My prediction, the appellate court should find reversable error, but, they may, given public oppinion and the complexities of the case, and the unfortunate status of our profession that even appellate courts are not above incompetence and public oppinion, decline to take any action.
It is always so much easier, no matter the outcome, and not matter whether the outcome was fair, just, or reached appropriately, to just say, "She had a jury trial and TWELVE jurors of her peers have spoken." In this case, I think the biggest mistake was not to have a bench trial.
A DC lawyer who is a fan of your blog!!
Mr. Ginsberg, if I ever am accused of a crime, I will hire you. You were indeed correct. I just had to poste this because I originally thought you were crazy.
ReplyDeleteKudos!!!!
ReplyDeleteShe is such a scumbag, I agree with you but it is a shame the police did not do a better job. The police suck, in Flordia and everywhere!!!
ReplyDeleteMan, even now, despite the acquital, these idiots on TV are trying to deflect blame to the justie system, the defense lawyers, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is no one's fault that the system works,
and clearly not the fault of anyone besides the governments (I did like the prosecutors) that they didn't have the "goods" on Casey Anthony.
Maira from LA
I canb't believe she is getting out in less than a week. It was incredible!
ReplyDeleteThis case is an example of how rancind our entire judicial system is. I can see why you took the time to care about the quality of a judge in your other blog post against Dan Clifford running for Judge in Pennsylvnia.
ReplyDeleteEY from NY
I can't believe that Casey Anthony goes free while Amanda Knox sits in jail. Does this just prove that justice is a matter of luck? Or does it prove that it is harder to get a conviction in the USA because we value the concept that "It is better to let 9 guilty people go free then send one innocent person to jail."
ReplyDeleteMr. Ginsberg - you are right on target. Why try for capital murder when you have a clear conviction of (in)voluntary manslaughter? There are too many politicians involved in law.. The "throwing the father under the bus" by an unsubstantiated sexual abuse claim is like claiming if you're not in AA, you're an alcoholic! Oh wait a minute, most of our legislatures are lawyers.. Maybe we make all these laws, and I'm clearly convinced there are TOO MANY laws, to keep our police, lawyers and judges employed. Let's start charging $200, regardless of outcome, for every 911 call and see if there is a change in the number of arrests and cases. The only reason Ms. Anthony is not in jail is that the State made a poor decision based on media input; she's clearly guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Do the State's attorneys get any consequence for these actions? As a taxpayer, I'd have them fired!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Now we see that there is another governemental over-reatcion to a situation we can't "wrap our head around." Now they want to enact Kaylee's law, which, in my oppinion, is absurd. We will imprison grieving parents, for example, if they don't report a death to the police within an hour, even if they are in the middle of crying, notifying loved ones, and praying. Even if the death of the child was expected and known to all, such as in the death of a child dying of cancer with no hope of surivival whose death was prolonged as long as possible and witnessed by nurses.
ReplyDeleteDavid M. Ginsberg
I like your legal analysis of the case. Overall, impressive blog. I really enjoy reading your articles. You really put a lot of work into this blog and it diffinitely has shown and paid off. Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteMike,
Narberth