Casey Anthony Case Study

Case Study 3: Casey Anthony Trial The Casey Anthony Trial uncovered a tumultuous family life, deception and criminal activity. This is part of the reason many believed she was undeniably guilty. The jury didn’t feel the same due to evidence that they considered to be circumstantial. On October 14, 2008 Casey was indicted on capital murder charges. A couple of months later, skeletal remains were found near their house and they belonged to Caylee Anthony. The capital murder trial began on May 24, 2011. “Despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's

Internet searches were found about chloroform prior to the murder and chloroform residue was found in Casey Anthony’s car. Consequently, this made prosecutors believe that Casey killed her daughter and tried to cover it up. However, the prosecutors couldn’t provide any physical evidence that would’ve proved that she was indeed guilty. “The ability to convince the court that digital evidence is worthy of reception into the criminal process is dependent on the qualifications and competence of the tendered expert, the skill and knowledge of the prosecutor in leading such evidence and the quality of the digital evidence itself (Hak, 2003)”. There was also some evidence that was disregarded in the case that could’ve produced a different outcome. “The Florida sheriff’s office had apparently overlooked over a thousand different search terms made from the family computer. The term “fool-proof suffocation” was made the day Anthony’s daughter was last seen alive (Friedman, 2012)”. Overall, there was a lot of evidence that the prosecution did not use at the trial. Some people believe that if this evidence was used it would’ve persuaded the jury to convict Casey

“The special properties and technical complexity of digital evidence often makes it even more challenging, as courts find it difficult to understand the true nature and value of that evidence (Boddington, 2015)”. It’s not uncommon for innocents to be convicted and guilty people acquitted because of digital evidence (Boddington, 2015). However, other factors can also affect the validity of the evidence, including: failure of the prosecution or a plaintiff to report exculpatory data; evidence taken out of context and misinterpreted; failure to identify relevant evidence; system and application processing errors; and so forth (Boddington, 2015). “There is a perception, largely undeserved, that digital evidence somehow alters the true nature of the original evidence and is therefore unreliable. Presented properly, digital evidence is capable of being of tremendous assistance to the courts (Hak,