Casey Anthony, OJ, and Rodney King: Is our Jury System Broke?
Unless you have been living under a rock, I'm sure most of you are familiar with the Casey Anthony trial by now. The facts are well-known by most: A young mother failed to report her two year old child's disappearance for 30 days. She lied to police on several occasions about her child's whereabouts and other important things. Six months later, the little girl's bones are found. The police arrested the mother and charged her with 1st degree murder, a death penalty offense in Florida.
National attention surrounded the month long trial. The prosecutors utilized state of the art, never before used forensic testimony in an attempt to convict Casey. However, the State could not prove how Caylee died and the defense offered several alternate theories. The defense pointed the finger at Casey Anthony's father and alleged that Caylee Anthony accidentally drowned.
Apparently, the jury was swayed by something as they returned not guilty verdicts on the most serious charges and only convicted Casey of 4 misdemeanor charges of lying to the police. Media and social outrage ensued. How could the jury acquit her after all the evidence against her?!?! Where is the justice?!? Similar outrage was felt after O.J. Simpson was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman and at least one major newspaper has labeled Casey as the "new OJ". L.A. rioted when police officers were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King.
So, is our jury system broken? As a lawyer for nearly 17 years, I have felt disappointment when a jury does not find for my client. However, I would never go so far as to say that the system is broken. What we have to understand, and learn, from high profile trials like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson is that the information that we get is filtered through the media. The media decides what to report to us. The media thrives on ratings and selling newspapers (like anyone reads those anymore). The media has an agenda which they are pushing and this is quite different from the actual evidence which a jury hears in a court of law.
The vast majority of Americans think that the Casey Anthony trial, OJ trial, and Rodney King trial are accurate representations of our legal system. They are not. The vast majority of persons charged with crimes are found guilty. The media only reports on the high profile cases because the other cases don't bring the ratings.
It is easy for us as "arm chair quarterbacks" to second guess a jury the way we second guess our favorite college football coaches. However, this jury sat through ALL the relevant testimony for a month and a half. They had access to all the relevant evidence which you and I did not see. The jury took an oath to follow the law and not be swayed by sympathy and prejudice.
Continue reading "Casey Anthony, OJ, and Rodney King: Is our Jury System Broke?" »
While in the middle of working on a very tedious and lengthy federal court brief, a former client stopped by to meet with my partner, Merrida Coxwell. The client, Roger Harris, was indicted for triple murder in 1993. Merrida tried the case in Hinds County Circuit Court. At the end of the State's case, Judge William Coleman ruled that the State had failed to prove that Roger was responsible for killing anyone. He directed a verdict in Roger's favor on all three murder counts. However, Judge Coleman held that the jury could consider whether Roger committed the "lesser included offense" of aggravated assault against these three victims. The jury convicted Roger of all three counts and he was sentenced to serve 60 years. (Digressing a bit, it is important to note that Roger maintained that he was acting in self defense when he returned fire and denied being the aggressor in the events that night.)
