Trial of the Century

As an attorney, I’m often asked by non-attorneys about high profile cases, which in the most recent news would be the Casey Anthony trial.  As a general matter I tend to ignore them, but here I ended up watching some of the proceedings and getting a vague and general idea of what was going on.  The general feeling I could gauge, judged by almost all of the relevant Facebook postings I’ve seen, was that the woman literally got away with murder – that the jury failed in its job.

 My own impression is somewhat different.  There seemed to be absolutely no evidence that Casey actually killed her daughter.  In fact, the jury even returned not guilty verdicts on the manslaughter/neglect charges.  What we really have is a general consensus that Caylee died on her watch – we don’t know how – and Casey covered it up.  The belief that Casey is legally responsible for her daughter’s death, somehow, is difficult to reconcile with a not guilty verdict.

 May I remind the public that the standard of evidence in a criminal case – yes, even in Florida – is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  “I think she probably did it” does not cut it.  By applying the standard even if they really believe she did it, but aren’t satisfied that the prosecution has met the evidentiary burden required, takes some excellent judgment and discretion on the part of the jury; they should be praised for doing their duty and not condemned for letting a murderer walk free. 

 The Founding Fathers were well aware that placing the burden on the prosecution and giving the defendant every benefit of the doubt is going to mean some very lucky (or careful) murderers walking free on the streets.  The alternative is Stalinist Russia:  Stalin himself was aware that many of his victims of the purges in 1937 were probably completely innocent, but he’d rather kill innocents than risk any potential threats to escape revolutionary justice.  I don’t think any of us would want to be convicted of a crime we didn’t commit simply because the jury thinks we “probably did it.” 

 Contrast this with the standard in a civil case, which is “a preponderance of the evidence”.  Here, “I think she probably did it” does cut it.  And the result is not jail time or a gas chamber, but compensatory and punitive damages, possibly in the millions. 

 Look at the O.J. Simpson cases.   In October 1995 the criminal jury acquitted him of murdering Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  Why they did so is up for speculation:  the general consensus seems to be that the jury had no good faith reasonable doubt as to his guilt but simply acquitted him as a “f**K you” to the LAPD.  I think that’s probably true.  But what people forget is that in February 1997, a completely different jury found Simpson liable for the same deaths in a wrongful death (civil) action: and awarded a $33.5 million verdict against him. 

 If anyone has standing to sue Casey Anthony in a civil case for the death of Caylee – e.g. whoever her father is, and I couldn’t tell who that was – the outcome will probably be considerably different than what happened here.

 Whether it will turn out to be the trial of the century…we’ll have to wait until 2101 to find that out.  Here’s hoping at least one of us, preferably me, is around to make that judgment.