Circumstantial Evidence within the Casey Anthony Trial - Research Paper Example

Circumstantial Evidence within the Casey Anthony Trial Grade (November 6, Casey Anthony Trialis one of the cases where Circumstantial Evidence featured prominently, owing to the fact that the crime was committed under circumstances where no witness would be available, since it was well choreographed way before it occurred (Paradis, 2011). Nevertheless, the jury did not find the merit in the Circumstantial Evidence that was presented, rather opting to continue digging for more and more evidence, and the more they tried to dig, the more elusive the evidence became. Despite the jury’s position that the Circumstantial Evidence did not merit proving the case of intended murder of Caylee beyond reasonable doubt, it is evident that the prosecutors had adduced evidence that had sufficiently served the principle of ‘reasonable doubt’ as a requirement of the law (Sarokin, 2011). Circumstantial Evidence within the Casey Anthony Trial Circumstantial Evidence is the important piece of evidence in criminal cases prosecution, owing to the fact that only a small percentage of crimes would be executed out of existing direct evidence. If all cases were to depend on direct evidence where a witness was present when the accused committed a crime, only a meager criminal file cases would even pass for trial (Fanning, 2009). After all, what would hinder the defendant denying being involved even when the witness still witnessed the crime being committed? In this respect, Circumstantial Evidence is vital for criminal trial, since it provides for the relevant pathway through which reasoning can be applied, so at to reach to a conclusion regarding how the crime was committed. The Casey Anthony Trial appears to have deduced sufficient circumstantial evidence, only that it was not executed properly. First, false testimony that Casey gave to the law enforcement officers when they set on investigating the case is sufficient to indicate that the defendant was determined to obstruct the course of justice (Ashton & Pulitzer, 2012). Despite the fact that reasonable doubt as a basis of determining the guilty or not guilty verdict for the accused is a necessity, nothing could be more indicative of the fact that the defendant must have known something about the death of Caylee than the false statements. Therefore, Casey was lying so that she could obstruct the law enforcement officers from being able to conduct a fruitful investigation. Casey had lied to her mother that Caylee was either with a nanny, in the beach, in the house and a host of other places for the whole time that her grandmother was asking for whereabouts (Russell & Cohn, 2013). Additionally, Casey lied to the police officers about her place of work where she claimed to have been during that period, until the officers took her to the Universal Studios, when she then confessed that she had not been working there (Russell & Cohn, 2013). The two incidences of lying simply serve to fulfill the ‘reasonable doubt’ requirement showing that Casey was guilty of some connection to the offense without any doubt, that is why she kept giving false accounts to prevent the officers or even her mother from unraveling he death of Caylee. Further, owing to the fact that the death of Caylee did not point to anyone else other than Casey as the prime suspect, added to the accounts of lying that she registered, the jury ought to have found her guilty of the offence (Fanning, 2009). Second, the huge piece of Circumstantial Evidence that had been presented beyond reasonable doubt, is the evidence related to Caylee having, been in Casey’s car after her death. The prosecution managed to show that the hair sample of Caylee that was found in Casey’s car trunk matched the one that was found on the trash bag that she had been disposed (Baez & Golenbock, 2013). More importantly however, the fact that the prosecution was able to show that the hair sample of Caylee that was found in Casey’s car trunk was from a dead body, since it had already formed a black band rooting on the base similar to the one that was collected from the trash bag site, is a huge piece of evidence (Fabio, 2011). Dr. Jan Garavaglia gave sufficient evidence to show that there was foul play on the side of Casey, owing to the fact that anytime a child dies without the intention to have her die, the case is always reported to the authorities (Ashton & Pulitzer, 2012). The worrying aspect of the case is that Casey did not report the death of Caylee after she had gone missing, even if she had drowned in a pool as the defense team suggested. The mere fact that Casey did not report that Caylee was missing for the 31 days, and in fact did not report Caylee’s missing since it is her mother who had reported to 911, serves to indicate that Casey was not just aware of the cause of death of her daughter, but was also involved and thus determined to keep it a secret (Paradis, 2011). Third, Dr. Arpad Vass, witnessing for the prosecution side had managed to show that the air test conducted on Casey’s car trunk had indicated two major evidences that the jury should have put into consideration. First, the air sample test undertaken had given evidence to the effect that the car trunk had carried a decomposing human body, due to the chemical combinations that were found to reflect the foul smell of a decomposing human body (Russell & Cohn, 2013). Second, the evidence from the air sample had shown that the car trunk had traces of chloroform, which is the same chemical compound that had been found on Caylee’s skull and decomposing body parts, especially on the duct tape that was used to close her nose and mouth (Fabio, 2011). These two evidences had shown without any reasonable doubt that Casey had the decomposing body of Caylee on her trunk, and that the body had the chloroform traces when it was in the car trunk, an indication that Casey had carried the dead body of Caylee on the car trunk before she eventually disposed it off at the trash bag site where it was found (Stone& Ferran, 2009). Further, even though it could be argued that the presence of the decomposing body of Caylee on Casey’s car trunk did not prove that she was the one who killed her, there is no evidence to the contrary that shows she was not the one in possession of the car at the time it carried the dead body. The other evidence pointing to Casey as the prime suspect is the fact that the trash bag that was used to carry and dispose Caylee’s body matched another one found at the Anthony’s home (Russell & Cohn, 2013). In addition, the beddings and blanket that Caylee was wrapped in matched the description of her bedding by her grandmother, which she used at their home. The duct tape that was used on Caylee’s face also matched the kind of tape that had been used at the Anthony’s home. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to duct tape a child on the face, dead or alive, and certainly there is no reason for anyone to dispose the dead body in the bush after putting it in a trash bag (Paradis, 2011). Additionally, there was evidence that someone had searched for the term chloroform on the Anthony’s computer, and there was even more evidence that Casey’s boyfriend possessed a photo that was admitted as part of evidence, which showed some caption reading “Win her over with Chloroform" (Russell & Cohn, 2013). This evidence also serves to relate Casey with the likelihood of having used chloroform on Caylee, as it depicts a strategy that was planned in advance. Thus, all the above circumstantial evidences points to the fact that Casey was involved in the death of Caylee, and points to this fact beyond any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, despite all these circumstantial evidence that pointed at Casey as the prime suspect, the jury still passed a ‘no guilt verdict’ over her (Fabio, 2011). The question that arises at this point then is; why did the jury issue a verdict of not guilty? The answer to this question points to the ineffective use of circumstantial evidence by the prosecution, even when it abundantly existed. The circumstantial evidence showed major faults on the side of Casey. She neglected her duties to raise her child, thus she could go missing for 31 days unnoticed or at least unreported. Further, she lied to her family and to the law enforcement officers in relation to the circumstances of Caylee missing (Sarokin, 2011). Therefore, the prosecution should have preferred charges of child neglect and false testimony against Casey, and that way the circumstantial evidence could have been effective in leading to a deserved prison sentence (Ashton & Pulitzer, 2012). Thus, the major fault with the use of the circumstantial evidence is that it was used to prefer the wrong charges against the defendant, which then led to the verdict of ‘not guilty’ being passed on her. The other fault with the use of the circumstantial evidence is that it was not executed to show the cause of death and the time of death, or the place of death (Baez & Golenbock, 2013). These aspects would have easily shown who was involved in the death of Caylee. Therefore, for circumstantial evidence to be effective, it must be executed to show the causal relationship between the crime and the accused, while at the same time being executed to prefer the right charges. References Ashton, J., & Pulitzer, L. (2012). Imperfect justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony. New York: William Morrow. Baez, J., & Golenbock, P. (2013). Presumed guilty: Casey Anthony: the inside story. New York: BenBella Books, Inc. Fabio, M. (2011). Why Cant Some Juries Convict on Circumstantial Evidence? Available at: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/why-cant-some-juries-convict-on-circumstantial-evidence Fanning, D. (2009). Mommys little girl: Casey Anthony and her daughter Caylees tragic fate. New York, N.Y: St. Martins Paperbacks. Paradis, Cheryl (July 5, 2011). The Measure of Madness. Psychology Today. Russell, J. & Cohn, R. (2013). Timeline of casey anthony case. S.l.: Book on Demand Ltd. Sarokin, L (2011, July 15).The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case. The Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html Stone, G. & Ferran, L. (2009, February 19). 500 Pages of Circumstantial Evidence in Casey Anthony Case. ABC NEWS. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/US/story?id=6912695 Read More