Criminal Law - Casey Anthony Trial - Essay Example

Casey Anthony Trial Introduction Casey’s trial is one of the cases that have drawn a lot of attention and marred by many controversies regarding how the case was handled and the defense provided by both lawyers and witnesses of both parties (Turley, 2011). It is reported that many American citizens and the media followed the proceedings keenly on their televisions with some presenting themselves physically in courts just to follow the developments. Nevertheless, a landmark ruling came on July 5, 2011when the jury ruled Casey not guilty for the crime he was accused to have committed (Turley, 2011). This has caused mix reactions from lawyers and the general public with some arguing that Casey was guilty of the murder. Nevertheless, before any judgment is reached, the jury is required to follow the due process of the law to ascertain whether the defendant is guilty of the charges or not. One such is that the accused must prove beyond doubt that the defendant actually committed the alleged crime and providing evidence to that effect. This paper will explore the facts of the case the evidence provided and ruling. It will also analyze the circumstances of the case to ascertain why the jury acquitted Casey of the charges. Facts of the case Caylee Marie Anthony, a two-year old girl, was found dead in December 11, 2008 after having been reported missing on 5 July, 2008 from their home in Orlando, Florida where she had been staying with her mother. The report was delivered by Cindy Anthony, one of her grandparent through a 9-1-1, who said that Cindy had not been seen for more than a month, and her mother’s car produce a smell as if a decaying body was inside it. In his report, he gave an account of how her mother had provided inconsistent explanations regarding Cindy’s whereabouts an only admitted not having seen her for some weeks. When asked by the detectives, Casey made-up stories, which included informing the detectives that an anonymous nanny had kidnapped her daughter on June 9 and that she had been searching for her. She also told the detectives that she failed to report the matter to the authorities mainly because she was frightened (Turley, 2011). As the search continued for Caylee, her mother Casey was charged with murder, but pleaded not guilty. However, Caylee’s skeletons were found on a wooden area next to their home on December 11. At the time her body was found, there was also a tape found next to the skull just next to the mouth. A medical report indicated that Caylee might have been killed using the tape. The trial continued for six from May to July 5, 2011 when the jury acquitted her of murder charges, but convicted of a misdemeanor for lying to the police officers during investigations (Shahani, 2011). Analysis of the case Burden of proof One of the issues that played out in Casey’s trial was the burden of proof, which refers to the duty placed upon a party to a dispute in a civil or criminal case to prove or reject a disputed fact. Basically, in criminal cases like Casey’s trial, the burden of proof lies with the government which has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the alleged crime. In Casey’s trial, the prosecution team alleged that a 25-year-old Casey Anthony murdered her daughter Caylee Marie Anthony, 2 years by drugging her with chloroform, after which she inserted a duct tape in Caylee’s mouth and nose so as to suffocate her to death. The prosecution also alleged that Casey hid Caylee’s body in the trunk of her Pontiac Sunfire before dropping it to where it was found because there were traces of decomposing hair and unpleasant odor in Casey’s Pontiac Sunfire. In such a case, the jury required the prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by bringing forth all the evidence to prove that Casey actually committed the act as alleged by the prosecutors. In such a case, Casey only has to defend herself from the allegation as charged by the prosecution team (Lat, 2012). In Casey’s trial, the jury ended up acquitting Casey of murder charges because the prosecutors were not able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey actually committed the offence. For instance after several months of trial, there were several uncertainties, which could not be substantiated by the prosecuting team. One such was because the government pathologist could not find credible evidence to link the tape to the murder as alleged arguing that the duct tape found on Caylee’s mouth might have been placed after the body had discomposed just to hold the jawbone together implying it was not used for murder. Further, an FBI forensic expert who acted as a witness for the prosecutor could only say that the hair found on Casey’s car showed some signs of decomposition as those, which might have originated from a dead body. However, he also testified that his conclusions were purely based on an evolving area of forensic science, which created doubt as to its authenticity (Baez, Golenbock, and Golenbock, 2012). In addition, the prosecutor failed to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt since even after conducting their investigation, there was no evidence of weapon used to commit murder and no one confessed to have committed the crime. Moreover, the prosecuting team did not have even a single eyewitness to help them prove their case. Further, the scientific evidences presented were doubtful and could not be substantiated. As such, the Jury felt that there was not enough evidence from the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed the crime thereby leading to her acquittal for murder charges (Shahani, 2011). Circumstantial evidence Circumstantial evidence also played a key role in the case that led to the acquittal of Casey, because all of them were highly questionable. In this case, there were quiet a number of circumstantial evidence that linked Casey to the murder. They included the forensic report from experts which found out that Casey’s car trunk had traces of chloroform used in the murder. There was also trunk of hair at the scene where Caylee’s skeletons were found and the fact that the post-mortem report matched the hair to that of Caylee. In addition, the fact that Caylee lied to the investigators that a fictitious nanny had kidnapped Caylee also clearly showed that she knew of Casey’s disappearance (Ashton, 2011). Nevertheless, despite such links, Casey could not be incriminated on the circumstantial evidence since they were questionable to convict Casey and sustain death penalty charges. In criminal law, the jury cannot rely merely on circumstantial evidence whether it clearly points to the direction linking the accused to the charges and has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain the charges. Therefore, since the circumstantial evidence provided could not be supported, the jury had no option, but to acquit Casey of murder charges for lack of credible evidence (Baez, Golenbock, and Golenbock, 2012). Evidence that is "consistent with" a crime does not constitute proof. In criminal charges, courts have always held that merely providing evidence that is consistent with a crime does not constitute a proof. In the Casey case, the prosecutors did attempt to provide evidence, which they alleged to have been consistent with their theory of how Caylee was murdered by her mother. In this regard, the prosecutor showed that Casey did search chloroform on the internet, with which she used kill Caylee and then closed Caylee’s mouth with a duct tape and nose to chock her to death after which she dumped her body at the wooden area. Nevertheless, consistency is not powerful enough to sustain a charge as the courts tend to rely much on evidence that points directly the identity of the killer, which the prosecutors could not avail thereby leading to Casey’s acquittal of murder charges. Consistency is not relied on in court because it amounts to uncertainty thereby giving room for the defense team a chance to argue their case as played out in the Casey case (Baez, Golenbock, and Golenbock, 2012). Conclusion The ruling in the Casey case teaches that the law is superior to what people may think. This is because, despite all the circumstantial evidences provided which linked Casey to murder, the jury still maintained that the prosecutors failed to produce enough evidence to prove their charges beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey actually committed the crime. Nevertheless, the ruling of this case was heartbreaking in my opinion since I am still of the feeling that Casey did have a case to answer. Therefore, I am of the feeling that ruling should be appealed against so that a higher courts can reevaluate the evidences produced in the case, as well as the facts pertaining to how the murder was committed. This is because it was not proper in my opinion for the jury not to convict Casey who even failed to notify the authority for months that her daughter was missing. It is also easy for anyone to believe Casey’s innocence because it is not normal for a reasonable person to party at a time her daughter is missing. Further, she went ahead and lied to the authority over her missing daughter. In this regard, common sense tells that Casey was guilty of the murder of her daughter Caylee and should not have been acquitted of murder charges. References Ashton, J. (2011). Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Baez, J., Golenbock, P., & Golenbock, P. (2012). Presumed Guilty: Casey Anthony: The Inside Story. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books. Lat, D. (2012). Trials and Error: The Casey Anthony Case. Retrieved from http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/trials-and-error-the-casey-anthony-case/. Shahani, A. (2011). Casey Anthony Trial Shows the Limits of Forensic Science in Proving How a Child Died. Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/casey-anthony-trial-shows-the-limits-of-forensic-science-in-proving-how-a-c. Turley, J. (2011). Casey Anthony case: Hate the facts, not the jury. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-08-anthony-trial-jury-justice_n.htm. Read More