Apparently, they didn't get the part about making their decision based on the EVIDENCE.

I'm confused. He saw Caylee leave? With her mother? How does seeing her leave with her child make him a part of the killing?

They need to start replacing juries with a panel of judges.

I am more and more leaning towards changing the system to professional juries. Obviously, the being judged by one's peers, has many weak spots. I served on two juries, neither one this sensational, but just as scary to the community. One, of a man who abducted a child and when he realized he had snatched a boy and not a girl, he made the child get out of the car. The boy was small and American and oriental mix so he was fine featured. The guy was found guilty. The other was a drug case and the culprit was so ugly and scary looking and stared at us jurors, one at a time until we felt so uneasy. In both of these cases, there was no doubt about the outcome. but in the Casey's case, it seems the jurors (IMO) had selective hearing, and were probably tired of be sequestered and just wanted to go home. With a professional jury, there wouldn't be any need to sequester, they would be less apt to rule with emotion and would have more of a knowledge of law.

I would never want "Professional" jurors. Isn't a trial by jury of ones peers guaranteed by Our Constitution? Don't start fooling around with that! This talk belongs in Hot Topics. I recuse myself!

Belong in Hot Topics??? Why? It isn't political or religious. Yes, there are strong feelings in every direction of the topic. But can't we post our opinions and feelings with out getting nasty? If every topic posted here on the KT that became a 'discussion" and had to be sent to the corner...Hot Topics, there would be a lot less posts here. A little boring too, IMO.

Another of my opinions......just because a subject is in The Constitution...doesn't necessarily make it correct for today's world.

Sorry if I personally offended Dotmom or anyone else. But I find the idea of "Professional" Jurors quite repugnant. You mean there would be "schools" for jurors and they would get paid for serving? That's offensive to me. First of all, I remember studying a little subject called "Civics" in school. We made a very thorough study of The Constitution and its amendments. Right to trial by jury is right up there. It is not outdated. Second, I've been on several juries. The lawyers were very careful in questioning us, to make sure we'd be fair and were qualified as "peers" of the defendants. Just normal, average people who use their heads and hadn't made up their minds ahead of time. Third, the judges in all cases gave very specific "instructions" to the juries. I'm sorry if I offend anyone,but I have strong opinions, too. And because I had expressed an opinion, I felt my posting probably belongs in Hot Topics. I'm not saying all talk of the Anthony trial belongs in Hot Topics. By the way, if I ever see Casey walking in front of my car, I'd gladly run her over, and back up for good measure.

And if the jury concluded that Casey's father George was responsible, wouldn't that lead them to conclude there was "a shadow of a doubt?"

I agree with Jannie. I do not ever want to go with a professional juror. I agree our justice system does not work every time, but it does work most of the time. I did not follow this case at all and don't feel qualified to answer whether she is guilty or innocent but isn't it possible that the prosecution didn't do their jobs if you all say that she was guilty? Maybe that's who you all should be angry with. Also, the prosecution are professionals and paid well. Do you really believe that a professional juror would do better? I don't.

I also agree that this may be a hot topic but I think that we can all play fair here at the KT.

If everytime an opinion was expressed it got directed back to Hot Topics, the only thing left on this board would be recipes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on a controversial subject. The only caveats are no religion, and no politics.

We're all grownups here.

I don't think this needs to in Hot Topics. I'm disappointed in the Anthony jury, but I don't instituting professional juries is the answer... and there would be other problems with that system anyway.

How much would they get paid and who would pay them and who would pick them ? For The Constitution Opposed to more tinkering with it.

I think professional jurors is a very bad idea.

lol, all jurors are "paid"...and you get paid whether you're called or not for a case...

I've seen the "pay" range from $8 a day to $50 a day, depending on the state and the county. In some counties in Florida, jurors get paid $15 a day.

I wouldn't mind being judged by a jury of my peers, trouble is my "peer" is different than Joe six-pack's "peer". But then, I wouldn't be stupid enough to commit a crime in which I would need to be judged by a jury of my peers. There are a lot of dumb people out there, and some of them end up on juries.

Profession Juries = Kangaroo Courts

One rogue cop, one vicious enemy and YOU could end up behind bars. Think about it . Please just really think with your heads and not your emotions just once.

Our system is based on the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must PROVE their case.

Not one news report says George is suspected of murdering the child. The juror stated that George's testimony was unreliable is all. He was a bad witness. It put more doubt in the minds of the jurors of what really happened.

I swear reading these threads is like the old game of "gossip" or "telephone" where a whispered statement goes around the room. Doesn't anyone bother to check facts? Apparently not.

"Our system is based on the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must PROVE their case.

Not one news report says George is suspected of murdering the child. The juror stated that George's testimony was unreliable is all. He was a bad witness. It put more doubt in the minds of the jurors of what really happened."

Simply put, the prosecution did not prove its case. Casey Anthony was on trial for the murder (or manslaughter) of her child. The prosecution did not prove that the child died from anything other than natural causes. Yes, that poor baby is dead, but who knows how she died? Casey Anthony wasn't charged with covering up the death of her child.

Exactly! There was simply no evidence to show that she killed the baby. End of story.

If the case had been proven, we would know beyond a reasonable doubt, how Caylee died and who put her in the grave but we don't. Having a firm idea is abstract thinking, you have to have absolute facts and the prosecution failed. Twelve educated people make a decision they could live with, they had doubts, and they obeyed the law of the land. Did Casey get away with murder, could be, but it can't be proven.

I found this interesting about "circumstantial evidence to be given the same weight as direct evidence"!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

I think the "shadow of a doubt" proves how our system is broken. I never had "civics" classes. We had "social studies" classes and they taught that you do not have to believe in guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to convict. Juries or judges need to believe in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As Archie Bunker would say, "case closed".

I think too many people want to modify this basic tenet of law and Constitution to avoid doing what's right and I see that as a major flaw both in people and society as a whole. Jury of peers these days is laughable. When's the last time a celebrity got a jury of their peers? OJ? Michael Jackson? Robert Blake? The Menendez brats? I doubt any of them would want a true jury of their peers! As for a jury for me, these days I'm not sure we could find 12 people with common sense!

Another issue is prosecution. I pop a cork when they essentially say "we thought we had a weak case but we tried it anyway..." or something like that. Then you shouldn't file the case. But it's equally sad in the cases like Martha (the 4time Felon) Stewart where they just dropped it down because although they believed they had plenty of evidence to convict, they figured they couldn't find a jury with the guts to convict her of the insider trading (because of celebrity worship) so they settled for the lesser felonies. So she gets off with Camp Cupcake. Yes, our system is in sad shape.

Having competent juries would help. Calling them "professional" is an inflammatory term as we can see by this thread. But competent would be nice. If people did as they're *supposed* to, the jury system would work fine, but people are selfish. Too many only consider themselves. That spoils the whole system.

The problem I see with the jury system is one of the problems with society as a whole. Fear of everything. The I don't want to get involved attitude and they might come and get me. People turn their head when they witness something. And I believe the majority of people are afraid to convict someone. And the attitude that really turns my stomach is the rationalizing not doing their job with the better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. The system is obviously in pieces when people want to convict innocent people.

And then again, it's a bit hypocritical for people to convict someone of crimes when they themselves commit them. Cheating on income taxes, lying to officials, padding the timecard, etc. They won't hold their kids accountable for things so how can they hold the accused accountable?

I really don't think people can get a fair trial. It's certainly to their advantage of course, since you stand a better chance of getting off.

And I don't think professional juries necessarily makes kangaroo courts. I *do* think the 24/7 media coverage and unbelievable hype and such makes the current courts into kangaroo courts. I have mixed feelings about cameras in courts. If people would watch some actual "everyday" type trials, perhaps they'd learn something about the system instead of going by their rose colored glasses look at what they think it should be. However the sensational cases, and the cheerleaders on TV who lead these sheeple around by the noses convincing them to "stay tuned, Greta Von Slushermouth will be back to tell you what to think after these words from today's sponsors Lipitor and the Law Firm of Dumb & Dumber"

"circumstantial evidence to be given the same weight as direct evidence"

"Juries or judges need to believe in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

A person accused of a crime can be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence if no other conclusion can be drawn from that evidence.

In Casey Anthony's case, there wasn't even circumstantial evidence that Caylee had been murdered. There was only evidence (her skeletal remains) that she had died.

BIG difference.

VAN SUSTEREN: Suspicious that he was involved in covering up the death, suspicious he was involved with the -- an accidental death, or suspicious he was a murderer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All three.

VAN SUSTEREN: Really, that he was a murderer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All three. We don't know. We don't know. The suspicions were raised.

VAN SUSTEREN: In the deliberation room?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We talked about it in deliberation. Yes, I can go a little more in depth into what we did in the deliberation room since I was the one who had to orchestrate the whole situation.

VAN SUSTEREN: How many people do you think at least -- and maybe it changed during the course of deliberations, but how many initially thought that George was responsible for a murder?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George? Well, you know, there is no -- the problem is with the gray area, there's no way that we can tell the responsibility. What was in question a lot of times dealt with, you know, Caylee was with Cindy the night before. When she came back the next night, they looked at the pictures of them at the retirement community. Then, you know, they went to bed.

You know, guardianship, when it started, who was looking out for her that next day? You know, George and Cindy and Casey all took hand in raising Caylee. We know that, you know, Cindy went to work. And then the gray area comes in.

VAN SUSTEREN: But at that gray area, I'm thinking, you know, the -- I realize that George isn't charged in this case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: And he's not charged (INAUDIBLE) Casey, but what I find interesting is that some jurors thought that he might be responsible not just for an accident or cover-up but for a murder.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was just -- it was just one of those things where we -- because he was there and there was a gray area there, he was in question for -- you know, for -- for us just being -- having -- having some character issues when he was on that stand. And he was there. He was there at the time, on that day that all the gray area is happening with us. And that puts him in that mix. It put him in the mix for us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Print
Email
Share
0 Comments

Content and Programming Copyright 2011 Fox News Network, Inc. Copyright 2011 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039#ixzz1SS9cfeWT