On May 25, 2010 Casey Anthony 's lawyer states to the court and jury that Caylee was unintentionally drowned in the swimming pool of their home , and that Casey and her father had cover it up. The prosecution presented that Casey Anthony did research on chloroform at her home computer but her mother Cindy Anthony 's asserted that it was her that made the searches that implicated her daughter but the records showed that Cindy Anthony was at work when these searches were done. On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of first degree murder but she was found guilty on four misdemeanors because she provided false material to a law enforcement officers. In this case the only obstacle the prosecutors had was prove that Caylee Anthony was murdered by her own mother, they had to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the jury that she was behind her daughter’s death. Most of the evidence that was presented was in fact pointed to Casey Anthony as the person who was fully liable for her daughter …show more content…
Simply because the juries base their verdict on evidence that proves the accused is linked to the evidence that is being presented in court. Conversely, it also involves unconventional indication that demonstrations of the indicted offense occurred. The Corpus Delecti involves evidence that proves the wrong or forfeiture was in fact produced by the accused mischievousness acts. In this case the jurisdiction required that independent evidence was in fact done by Casey Anthony. Unfortunately, in this case the prosecution did a poor job on linking all evidence to Casey Anthony that proved she murdered her daughter. The prosecution ignored a single plain legitimate notion “Corpus Delicti” requirement and due to that failure of addressing it the jury was forced to give a “not guilty” verdict from the beginning of the
The defense opening statement alleged Caylee had unintentionally drowned in her grandparents' swimming pool in their backyard. Also, they alleged that Casey reacted strangely because she had
USA TODAY published an article “Casey Anthony breaks her silence: I sleep pretty good at night.” Anthony did an interview with Associated Press speaking about the case and her daughter’s death for the first time. The Associated Press said that the interview with Anthony was “revealing, bizarre and often contradictory, and ultimately raised more question than answers about the case.” In the interview with Associated Press, Anthony admitted to lying to the police about a number of things such as her employment, leaving her child with a babysitter, and receiving a call from Caylee before she went missing. During the trial, the defense stated that Caylee had drown in the pool and then Casey Anthony’s father tried to cover up the accident.
Five percent of U.S citizens have been wrongfully convicted. The book “Monster” written by Walter Dean Myers is about Steve who is on trail for a murder that he didn’t commit. There is agreeance with the jury that Steve isn’t guilty because there is a lack of evidence of his involvement and it is inferred that Steve doesn’t have a criminal record. To begin with, there was a lack of evidence of Steve’s involvement. The author wrote “one of the men arguing she points to King”(Myers 114).
In the Casey Anthony trial, a controversial piece of evidence had been brought up about whether or not the “smell of death” from the trunk of Casey’s car can be linked to and used as evidence in the death of her daughter, Caylee Anthony. The smell that was in the trunk of Casey’s car could have been used as evidence in the trial. Why? Because it would have proven that, her daughter Caylee decomposed body was in the trunk of the car.
Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase the United States justice system says we abide by but in many cases this seems to falter from true. Due to various factors such as tunnel vision, faulty forensics, false confessions, improper identification, missing evidence and the list could go on; all of these reasons can lead to a biased trial and ultimately lead to a wrongful conviction. Julie Rea was a single mom convicted of the murder of her ten year old son Joel Kirkpatrick on October 13th, 1997. This twenty-eight year old mom and her son lived in a rural area in Lawrence, Illinois that was referred to as a quaint little town that very rarely saw any crime so when the news of sweet little Joel Kirkpatrick being murdered got out it sent the
This brings me back to prop 66. In California “nearly two thousand murders occur annually and only fifteen death sentences are imposed”(prop 66 official voters guide). When the father of Hester Prynne’s child did not commit a murder or rape which those people who committed murder would be sentenced to death. Although prop 66 will bring justice to those families that have suffered great losses it still has it’s drawbacks, prop 66 is poorly written and might sentence innocent lives.
The cases of O.J. Simpson and Lizzie Borden are two court cases in American history that are 100 years apart, conversely are very parallel. On both occasions the verdict comes to be the same: not guilty. Circumstantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion or fact, was heavily utilized in the process of prosecuting both subjects. Both Orenthal James Simpson and Lizzie Borden should be found guilty of murder due to the continuous number of things that prove their guilt.
The police and prosecutors are blind to the truth of the situation: Fontenot and Ward are innocent, and, as explained in this report, there is no evidence to prove they committed the crime, and all evidence brought forward by the prosecution is flawed or incorrect. Corpus Delicti Corpus delicti is a Latin term that means "body of the crime". The term
Lizzie Borden took an ax, And gave her mother forty whacks; When she saw what she had done, She gave her father forty-one. The famous rhyme of Lizzie Borden giving her mother 40 whacks and then her father 41. Most people assume she committed the crime, of killing her parents, and that she planned the whole thing though there are some holes in the case. Everybody thinks she committed the crime though no one is sure, one thing is certain there are holes in the case and these holes make me believe that Lizzie did not do the crime. There are so many holes that no one is certain who did the crime.
(Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the
They must provide proof beyond reasonable doubt to be proven guilty. I believe that in this movie the jurors were being skeptical of the prosecution's story. This movie was based on a boy who is being accused of murdering his father and the
“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.
This may cause the jury to be indecisive between what the actual case and what the media portrays it to be. The amount of media released for cases creates a negative impact within the courts and makes it difficult for a fair trial. When juries are uncertain about a case or a suspect, they result to social media platforms and news coverage that will provide them with more information and depth into the case. ‘’But if the case unfolds in the media, by the time a case gets to court, the supposedly impartial jury (or even the judge) may have already heard information and allegations (not admissible by court standards) that have caused them to seriously prejudice the parties’’. (Nedim, 2014).
This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All
As a necessary corollary to this, it must be understood that the defense is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case in order to secure acquittal. Now, in respect of heinous offences such as stalking and rape, it is understood that the burden of proof has been reversed in order to ensure a greater possibility of conviction. However, this cannot be allowed to negate the very basics of the trial itself. The standard of reasonable doubt exists for the protection of the accused. Implicit in it is the understanding that since it is the prosecution that brought the case, they must take the full responsibility of proving it in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime which they charged him