Anthony verdict a victory for "reasonable doubt," experts say

LOS ANGELES Tue Jul 5, 2011 6:00pm EDT

1 of 2. Casey Anthony (C), flanked by her attorneys Jose Baez (L) and Dorothy Clay Sims, reacts to being found not guilty on first degree murder charges in the death of her daughter Caylee at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida July 5, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Red Huber/Pool

Related Video

Related Topics

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The not guilty verdict for Casey Anthony on Tuesday also can be seen as a victory for the U.S. justice system, despite strong public opinion that she killed her 2 year-old daughter, legal experts said.

A Florida jury cleared Anthony of the murder charge she faced in the 2008 death of her daughter, Caylee, but found her guilty of lying to police about the incident.

A number of media commentators had expected Anthony to be found guilty of murder in the case, even though prosecutors were forced to rely largely on circumstantial evidence.

Doug Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, said popular opinion came to the conclusion the 25 year-old Anthony was guilty, but that jurors must hold to a higher standard than the average citizen watching on TV.

That standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability."

Josh Niewoehner, a Chicago attorney who worked on the successful defense of R&B singer R. Kelly against charges of child pornography, said he welcomed the Anthony verdict.

"I commend the jurors for listening to the evidence and not listening to the media," Niewoehner said.

"It's a good day for justice in the sense that you have to prove every element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt," he added.

The case against Anthony, who had faced the possibility of the death penalty if found guilty of murdering her daughter, was short on forensic evidence, such as Caylee's time or manner of death, Berman said.

Berman said popular television show "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has influenced jurors in recent years, by giving them the false impression every case has the same clear-cut forensic evidence featured in that fictional series.

"There's been a lot of speculation that lay jurors have now gotten even less likely to convict, because they're under the false impression that every case is going to have some sort of forensic smoking gun," he said.

Because of the tragic nature of 2 year-old Caylee Anthony's death, many in the public felt someone must be held responsible and they saw Casey Anthony as that person, experts said.

"Popular opinion did find her guilty, which is why we have so many people right now in shock," said psychologist Gregory Jantz, author of "Overcoming Anxiety, Worry and Fear" and founder of counseling and treatment center A Place of Hope.

"The next phase is going to be anger, and particularly from people who have suffered from trauma in their own lives," Jantz said.

Prosecutors alleged that Casey strangled her daughter with duct tape and dumped her body in nearby woods. The defense said Caylee Anthony accidentally drowned in the family pool and the family failed to report it.

Allan Ackerman, a Chicago criminal defense attorney, said he was "taken aback by the giggling" of prosecutor Jeff Ashton during a defense attorney's closing arguments, and he wondered whether that played any role in Anthony's acquittal.

"I suppose there's a lesson in it," Ackerman said. "Respect the court, respect your opponent and certainly respect the jury."

(Additional reporting by Mary Wisniewski in Chicago: Editing by Greg McCune)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (39)
Gringo wrote:
There is obviously something seriously wrong with the American jury system. Twenty years ago it was clear that the average juror was too ignorant to understand basic scientific evidence (corrupt DNA does not make it likelier to transform into the main suspect’s DNA). America’s education system has, during my lifetime, been criticised to the point that the NY Times pays writers to laud the virtues of the fascist Chinese system where a population of 1.4 billion has two universities known abroad, and where corruption is so rampant universities abroad refuse to acknowledge the qualifications gained from nearly all. Clearly ignorant people such as Bush and Palin are held up to be the best that a population of 300 million could hope for to represent them in these most challenging times. In the past this intelligence deficit was seen as threatening the country’s future scientists, economists, doctors… now it seems that it is affecting the very idea of justice itself. A dystopia if ever there was one.

Jul 05, 2011 6:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kdmask wrote:
Wow.. so I guess the jury not hearing ALL the evidence is fine? Just like the OJ trial, so much information left out in this case due to legal mumbo-jumbo and smoke screens. The jury hears a select amount of information deemed “appropriate”.
The fact that the jury didn’t think not reporting your 2 year old missing for 31 days was a sign of abuse or neglect shows you how badly their thought process was.
Not only can she make money off of all of this, she can have more babies as soon as she wants to. Think about that.

Jul 05, 2011 6:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
I couldn’t be prouder of the American justice system. The 12 jurors from our very conservative Pinellas County did not get swayed by public opinion, and did their jobs: analyzed the evidence and rendered theri verdict. Even the media commentators who revved up the “Let’s get Casey” talk, stated repeatedly BEFORE the verdict was announced, that the jury was attentive throughout the trial, took notes, and looked serious. To turn around and say it was a travesty of justice that these “attentive” and “serious” jurors came out with a verdict that the lynch mob in the media was looking for, shows that the media who were making money off this case, do not deserve the same respect that we owe the “attentive” and “serious” jurors who gave their time and money to perform their civic duty, with the courage to do what was right, not what was popular. Hurray for the system!

Jul 05, 2011 6:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.