Is the country obsessed with the Casey Anthony trial? Maybe. TIME magazine thinks so.
These days, little else besides the Casey Anthony trial appears to be covered on HLN, and other evening news or news feature/talk shows appear to be devoting quite a bit of coverage to this one case in Orlando, Florida.
I admit to watching more television than usual these past two weeks, and I'm sure that I'll stick with my pattern through to the verdict. Part of my pondering this whole thing is asking myself why I feel the need to stick with it: it's not like I don't have a gazillion other things to do. You too, am I right?
However, I don't think that having so many Americans watching the Casey Anthony trial is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing for several reasons, including:
1. Viewers Are Learning How Trials Really Work - Which Helps Lawyers in Future Cases
Trial lawyers have to deal with clients, jurors, witnesses - heck, sometimes even experts - that expect courtroom proceedings to happen just like they've seen them on television. The attorney's biggest concern is that a jury does not perceive his or her case as weak just because someone looking remarkably like Laurence Fishburne or David Caruso or Marg Helgenberger isn't taking the stand to describe how this fancy dancy lab gizmo can reveal who shot JR in thirty seconds flat.
Or, that the lawyers aren't numbskulls because they need more than the single file folder you see oh-so-many lawyers bring into the courtroom (and then they don't even open the folder to look inside!). Oh, oh, oh - and the perfect hair and makeup and wardrobe! TV lawyers never, ever reflect the reality of real courtroom work. Trial lawyers work all night getting ready to perform the next day; by that second or third week, no one has perfect hair (or maybe even mascara) at that point.
So, to the extent that discussions are being had over "junk science" and viewers are watching how cumbersome those objections can be in the Casey Anthony trial and how many paper is really involved, good. It helps the real lawyers out there - and justice, too. (I won't discuss the blond attorney's hair, but I think she's doing a fine job of keeping up appearances with everything else on her plate. Isn't she still wearing heels? Geez Louise, that's impressive.)
2. Viewers are Finding Out Why Death Penalty Cases Cost So Much
There is lots of chat right now not only about how much is Jose Baez getting paid (or not), but also about how much the State of Florida is going to have for a final tab in this case. Viewers are learning the right to counsel that is constitutionally guaranteed to anyone who can prove themselves indigent means that these cases have the government (read that "the taxpayer") footing the bill for work done by both sides as well as all their expenses. Now, those fees and expenses are monitored (in Florida, it's by the JAC) and the legal fees are far from what a similarly situated criminal defense attorney would get in a private-pay case.
Still, one of the main challenges to the death penalty in the country today (think California) is the simple fact that it costs so darn much. In the Casey Anthony trial, viewers are seeing how this works -- and they will soon see, assuming that there is a guilty verdict, how a death penalty case is really two trials in sequential order. The penalty phase will have its own evidence (witnesses, testimony) as the state puts on its aggravating factors and the defense, its mitigating circumstances, as the decision of whether or not the sentence should be death at the hands of the state is determined.
So, it's good that viewers are learning the finances of indigent defense, particularly involving the death penalty.
3. Viewers Are Learning About Parents Who Don't Love Their Kids Like People Assume They Do
Right now, I don't think there is enough information out there about mothers who are not automatically loving and kind and protective of their offspring. Casey Anthony is viewed as something unique, still - and whether or not viewers think she's innocent or a monster, it's still discussion revolving around this one young woman. I have hopes, though, that this will change.
In my years down at the Children's Court, I saw all too often that mothers (and fathers) are not blessed with an inate need or drive to protect, love, or nurture their children. Frankly, it was a reality that slammed me in the face, seeing child after child, each beautiful and unique in their own way, discarded or disrespected or victimized in other ways by their BioMom or BioDad. The mothers really got me - choosing drugs, men, or just their freedom over their babies.
It happens a lot more than most Americans want to think about: it's easier to think about children starving in Africa or orphaned in Tahiti than it is to consider the overwhelming number of unloved, abused, and neglected kids here in our own backyards. Here in San Antonio, there are only enough child advocates (via CASA) to assign to 1/3 of the children who have been removed from their parent's care. That means 67% of the local kids don't have an advocate (they do have a lawyer and a caseworker).
I hope that the Casey Anthony trial, somehow, sheds a light on damaged mothers - and the children they leave behind. That, I think, would be the best thing to result from the Casey Anthony trial obsession.
6/13/2011
6/09/2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Who's On That Jury?
The Orlando Sentinel has a great reference for who is on the Casey Anthony jury, entitled "Bios of the Casey Anthony Jury."
It's a slide show, and appears to be a transcription of notes taken by the Sentinel's reporter during jury selection. Their identities are being protected until they are released from jury duty - but once they're released, we'll know lots about them. Remember the OJ Trial?
It's a slide show, and appears to be a transcription of notes taken by the Sentinel's reporter during jury selection. Their identities are being protected until they are released from jury duty - but once they're released, we'll know lots about them. Remember the OJ Trial?
6/08/2011
Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence
Can we trust circumstantial evidence? Sure we can. And we do. Rather than use my own words to explain why, I'll leave it to the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case, Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121, 140, 99 L. Ed. 150, 75 S. Ct. 127 (1954):
For Those That Distrust Circumstantial Evidence, Direct Evidence Isn't That Reliable
There are those that may argue that direct evidence, especially in a murder case, should be the only evidence used to convict. However, in our imperfect world there usually isn't much direct evidence in most crimes -- and the direct evidence that may be had might not be the most reliable.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for example - and you can't get more direct that a witness glaring at a defense table, pointing his finger and crying out, "he did it!"
Meanwhile, the slow and tedious introduction of pieces of circumstantial evidence, as time consuming as it might be, can provide a clear picture of the truth - I like to think of it as a "Lite-Brite" of sorts. Remember Lite-Brites? They were toys were white lights were hidden by thick black paper on a screen, and you had oodles of plastic buttons, or pegs, that you pushed one at a time into that black nothingness until an image emerged.
Perhaps those that distrust circumstantial evidence are more concerned, really, with the burden of proof that the State in a criminal case must meet in order to prove their case. Twelve jurors must use what they have (from Holland, their "experience with people and events") and determine if there is any reasonable doubt left that the defendant did the crime alleged.
Doubt can remain. It just cannot be a reasonable doubt. And logical reasoning can occur in that jury room. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you can infer it's a duck.
Some Believe That Circumstantial Evidence is More Reliable That Direct Evidence
Note: In fact, there are those in the criminal arena that find circumstantial evidence to be more reliable than direct evidence (especially when we're talking eyewitnesses). If you are interested in learning more on that issue, I've downloaded Professor Heller's excellent article on this subject, "The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence," 105 Michigan Law Review (2006) at Google Docs.
The University of Michigan Law School is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and coming from UT Law, another top tier law school, maybe I should have found a UT Law Review article -- but I like Heller's article here and I think you will, too.
Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.
For Those That Distrust Circumstantial Evidence, Direct Evidence Isn't That Reliable
There are those that may argue that direct evidence, especially in a murder case, should be the only evidence used to convict. However, in our imperfect world there usually isn't much direct evidence in most crimes -- and the direct evidence that may be had might not be the most reliable.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for example - and you can't get more direct that a witness glaring at a defense table, pointing his finger and crying out, "he did it!"
Meanwhile, the slow and tedious introduction of pieces of circumstantial evidence, as time consuming as it might be, can provide a clear picture of the truth - I like to think of it as a "Lite-Brite" of sorts. Remember Lite-Brites? They were toys were white lights were hidden by thick black paper on a screen, and you had oodles of plastic buttons, or pegs, that you pushed one at a time into that black nothingness until an image emerged.
Perhaps those that distrust circumstantial evidence are more concerned, really, with the burden of proof that the State in a criminal case must meet in order to prove their case. Twelve jurors must use what they have (from Holland, their "experience with people and events") and determine if there is any reasonable doubt left that the defendant did the crime alleged.
Doubt can remain. It just cannot be a reasonable doubt. And logical reasoning can occur in that jury room. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you can infer it's a duck.
Some Believe That Circumstantial Evidence is More Reliable That Direct Evidence
Note: In fact, there are those in the criminal arena that find circumstantial evidence to be more reliable than direct evidence (especially when we're talking eyewitnesses). If you are interested in learning more on that issue, I've downloaded Professor Heller's excellent article on this subject, "The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence," 105 Michigan Law Review (2006) at Google Docs.
The University of Michigan Law School is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and coming from UT Law, another top tier law school, maybe I should have found a UT Law Review article -- but I like Heller's article here and I think you will, too.
Casey Anthony Trial Defense Costs - How Much the State of Florida Has to Pay
Judge Perry, in a public hearing last year, approved the court clerk's determination that Casey Anthony was legally indigent. By being declared "indigent" under the law, Casey would become eligible for her legal expenses to be paid by the State of Florida. However, the defense did not request that her attorneys' fees be paid out of the state's pocket according to the media sources I reviewed today. (Good summary provided by CBS News.)
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
The Psychology of Casey Anthony - I've Invited a Psychologist to Post
I want to understand what is going on with Casey Anthony and her family, and I know that several readers have written, voicing similar interests. So, I've sent an invitation to an expert in narcissism and asked for a guest post.
Hopefully, we'll have that input by Friday evening - if not, I'll send out another invite to an expert in narcissism or sociopathy, etc. and (fingers crossed) either way, we'll have an expert giving us details on this issue.
Personally, I pondered on this issue a couple of years back, as fodder for character studies in my personal writing and I posted about this at my fiction writing blog (here).
For me, I don't believe that Casey can be considered without looking at her family, particularly her mother. There's something sad and bad about their relationship - but I'll wait to hear what the psychologist has to reveal about all this.
Reading one reader's comment here - Anonymous on June 5th to Who Is Jose Baez? post - I think she may know more than the rest of us about the family dynamic in that house, e.g., that Casey became a liar as a means of escaping the overwhelming power and control of her mother. That makes sense to me.
One other thing: I wish that I could look at Casey Anthony and consider the possibility of a mother killing her child as a bizarre, unique instance - but I can't. One of the biggest shocks that I had when I worked the local CPS Docket was the parents, particularly the mothers. There were some that were blind to their children, they did not care. I learned that a maternal instinct is not a given in humans. Some chose drugs, true. Some, however, just did not love those babies - and "blind" is the closest I can get right now to describing their lack of perception.
Hopefully, we'll have that input by Friday evening - if not, I'll send out another invite to an expert in narcissism or sociopathy, etc. and (fingers crossed) either way, we'll have an expert giving us details on this issue.
Personally, I pondered on this issue a couple of years back, as fodder for character studies in my personal writing and I posted about this at my fiction writing blog (here).
For me, I don't believe that Casey can be considered without looking at her family, particularly her mother. There's something sad and bad about their relationship - but I'll wait to hear what the psychologist has to reveal about all this.
Reading one reader's comment here - Anonymous on June 5th to Who Is Jose Baez? post - I think she may know more than the rest of us about the family dynamic in that house, e.g., that Casey became a liar as a means of escaping the overwhelming power and control of her mother. That makes sense to me.
One other thing: I wish that I could look at Casey Anthony and consider the possibility of a mother killing her child as a bizarre, unique instance - but I can't. One of the biggest shocks that I had when I worked the local CPS Docket was the parents, particularly the mothers. There were some that were blind to their children, they did not care. I learned that a maternal instinct is not a given in humans. Some chose drugs, true. Some, however, just did not love those babies - and "blind" is the closest I can get right now to describing their lack of perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)