Casey Anthony trial starts today...*Found not guilty*

[zrinkill]

It's also sickening to me that what is probably the best justice system in the world, that is there for the protection of all its citizens, including you if you ever need it, is so derided by some of you.

If there was a place in it for the use of common sense, it would not be derided.

 

[peplaw06]

If there was a place in it for the use of common sense, it would not be derided.

Yeah... there is. That's what juries are for. Just cause this jury didn't decide the way you would have doesn't mean they didn't use common sense.

They heard the all of the evidence, neither you nor I did.

 

[zrinkill]

They heard the all of the evidence, neither you nor I did.

Actually I think they heard less.

The judge did not allow much of the prosecutions evidence because he deemed it so.

Too bad the Jury was only allowed to hear the defense teams wild stories in which they did not even provide circumstantial evidence of.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Hey, pep, it's almost check out time. But they did leave a light on for you. I heard pep was going to be 2nd chair, but got kicked of the defense team when he proposed self-defense as Casey's defense.

Hey, I thought it was creative,though, Peppy.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Just one: he cleared his cousin Vinnie of a murder rap.

It was his aunt. State v. Tot Mom and he claimed self-defense. He has experience with cases just like this one.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Your original post that I responded to stated that because he made this claim, essentially testifying in Casey's stead, that Casey should be REQUIRED to testify. Which is, of course, ridiculous, given the 5th amendment. You would have to know ahead of time what each and every witness was going to say, and if they were going to lie or not, ahead of time, and be prepared that if such and such witness were to lie, that if you stated any one thing that they lied about and the only person who could contradict that is the defendant, you just waived your client's 5th amendment right.

If that were the case, the defense would essentially not be able to put on an opening statement.

And your reading comprehension sucks too. You got some learnin to do boy. Have you taken criminal law yet?

Yeah, I'd like to see that. Let's see the rush of people backing up a 1L over a lawyer.

Hey, you stated that you had testified in your own behalf and won, and implied it had been more than once. I pretty much think that you're talking about a civil trial of some sort, in which case, you'd be talking out your ***, since that's not the same AT ALL. But if you had testified on your own behalf in a criminal trial, I'd like to know about it. It's not ad hominem. I honestly want to know. You made the statement, then didn't answer the question.

BTW, you probably shouldn't be complaining about ad hominem attacks when you can't help yourself from doing it.

Oh, I have no doubt you're probably the guy who sits at the front of the class and answers all the questions and THINKS he's the smartest guy in the class picking on everyone else. In reality, if you can't recognize when actual real-world experience is kicking you in the butt and you keep screaming at the top of your lungs, you're going to make a terrible lawyer if you make it that far.

Hundreds. Admittedly, it is not my primary field of practice. But I can run circles around someone who "talked to a bunch of lawyers and professors" and testified for himself in a civil case a couple times.

Oh, wait, she didn't, couldn't have and can't make claims nor can her defense attorney.

You. Sir. Have obviously never tried a case in your life.

And keep on thinking.

It helps us see through you.

 

[joseephuss]

Actually I think they heard less.

The judge did not allow much of the prosecutions evidence because he deemed it so.

Too bad the Jury was only allowed to hear the defense teams wild stories.

What percentage is "much"? I ask seriously because I don't know how much of the evidence brought forth by the prosecution was allowed or not.

 

[zrinkill]

What percentage is "much"? I ask seriously because I don't know how much of the evidence brought forth by the prosecution was allowed or not.

A lot of the decomposition evidence was not allowed to be displayed to the Jury.

A lot of her history and past crimes were not allowed to be brought up to the jury.

He disallowed the air sample evidence because he said it would turn the jury into witnesses.

 

[joseephuss]

A lot of the decomposition evidence was not allowed to be displayed to the Jury.

A lot of her history and past crimes were not allowed to be brought up to the jury.

He disallowed the air sample evidence because he said it would turn the jury into witnesses.

"The prosecution had a sealed can which they wanted the jury to take back during their deliberations and be allowed to do a "smell test" but Chief Judge Belvin Perry disallowed it, based on some rulings from the 1920's during the prohibition period where jurors were allowed to smell and drink whiskey, to determine if it was indeed whiskey. The argument was supported by evidence, if it was allowed in the jury room, one juror could smell the sealed can and tell the others, "yes it is the smell of death" and the defense team would not be able to cross examine them, since they were deliberating."​

I found something about what you are talking about. I have to agree with the ruling. It is one thing for an expert witness to tell you the air smelled like death, which was allowed in this trial. It is another to ask the jurors what they think they are smelling. Jurors are not experts. Death to one juror could smell like stale beer to another. Plus I think the whole evidence of smell used in this trial marks the first time such evidence was ever used. I think the prosecution got their point across without doing the juror smell test.

 

[Doomsday101]

"The prosecution had a sealed can which they wanted the jury to take back during their deliberations and be allowed to do a "smell test" but Chief Judge Belvin Perry disallowed it, based on some rulings from the 1920's during the prohibition period where jurors were allowed to smell and drink whiskey, to determine if it was indeed whiskey. The argument was supported by evidence, if it was allowed in the jury room, one juror could smell the sealed can and tell the others, "yes it is the smell of death" and the defense team would not be able to cross examine them, since they were deliberating."​

I found something about what you are talking about. I have to agree with the ruling. It is one thing for an expert witness to tell you the air smelled like death, which was allowed in this trial. It is another to ask the jurors what they think they are smelling. Jurors are not experts. Death to one juror could smell like stale beer to another. Plus I think the whole evidence of smell used in this trial marks the first time such evidence was ever used. I think the prosecution got their point across without doing the juror smell test.

True but then I wonder why the prosecution did not press the use of the Cadaver dog that went directly to the trunk of that car

 

[zrinkill]

I have to agree with the ruling.

I do not ...... I think the Jury should be allowed to see ALL the evidence.

That is what they are supposed to be there for.

 

[joseephuss]

True but then I wonder why the prosecution did not press the use of the Cadaver dog that went directly to the trunk of that car

That makes me curious as well. Even so, proving that Caylee's dead body was in the trunk at one time does not prove murder. It could still be an accidental death and then a panicked move to cover it up. They still run into the problem of proving cause of death, which helps determine murder. Just a strange set of circumstances that investigators and the prosecution were stuck with.

 

[joseephuss]

I do not ...... I think the Jury should be allowed to see ALL the evidence.

That is what they are supposed to be there for.

But they did see it to the extent that the air was evidence admitted and was discussed by expert witnesses. If they show cause of death is a gunshot to the head, they show the jury the gun, any leftover bullet fragments and the damage to the head and let experts describe what occurred. They don't give the bullets and head to the jury and ask them to physically compare the bullet to the head.

 

[Doomsday101]

That makes me curious as well. Even so, proving that Caylee's dead body was in the trunk at one time does not prove murder. It could still be an accidental death and then a panicked move to cover it up. They still run into the problem of proving cause of death, which helps determine murder. Just a strange set of circumstances that investigators and the prosecution were stuck with.

I agree. I just thought it was a bad move to use a so called smelling machine that was used for the 1st time in a criminal case. I think that made it easy to punch holes in the prosecutions case.

 

[zrinkill]

But they did see it to the extent that the air was evidence admitted and was discussed by expert witnesses. If they show cause of death is a gunshot to the head, they show the jury the gun, any leftover bullet fragments and the damage to the head and let experts describe what occurred. They don't give the bullets and head to the jury and ask them to physically compare the bullet to the head.

In that case there is no reason for them to see any evidence ..... just hear what experts say about it.

 

[casmith07]

In that case there is no reason for them to see any evidence ..... just hear what experts say about it.

.....exactly. So what makes this any different?

 

[zrinkill]

.....exactly. So what makes this any different?

 

[joseephuss]

I'm not getting what was funny about that. The jury got to see the evidence presented. They just weren't allowed to personally smell the air out of the canister. It isn't as if all the air smell evidence was disallowed, which was a strong possibility since these techniques and methods had never been used in court before.

 

[zrinkill]

So you both think that a jury does not need to see any evidence ..... just hear testimony from "experts" about evidence because they are not experts themselves.

Awesome.

Peace

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v210/zrinkill/casey-anthony-party-girl.jpg

 

[joseephuss]

So you both think that a jury does not need to see any evidence ..... just hear testimony from "experts" about evidence because they are not experts themselves.

Awesome.

Peace

Isn't that what you think?

In that case there is no reason for them to see any evidence ..... just hear what experts say about it.

Thanks for taking my discussion of a specific issue and then making an over generalization.