-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
-
All in the Family
March 26, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Israel in the Tank for Obama
March 21, 2013 | 112 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Foreman’s Knockout Punch
Justice may not have been served in the Casey Anthony trial, but the Constitution was.
If you are superstitious about having 13 at table for dinner, you probably should not invite all the people in the state of Florida who thought that the justice system worked well in the Casey Anthony case. That would be the 12 members of the jury which acquitted her, and yours truly. As a constitutional conservative, the verdict of the jury resonates with me ringingly. They got it right, just in time for July 4th, and so did the Founding Fathers of this great country.
One of the areas of confusion in the conservative personality is a tendency to back all the conclusions advanced by law enforcement personnel. People have this odd idea that it is more conservative to lock people up in large numbers for long terms over small infractions with little evidence. That may be a good plan for Barack Obama to lower the unemployment rate by taking people out of the equation, but what great principle does this conserve?
You can see where people are coming from with this attitude. They want to be on the side of the law, and they want to live in an orderly society. However, to be a conservative in the United States is to preserve the values of the Constitution intact against the depredations of low forces. Such forces include not only bad faith elements with corrupt motives; they include also good faith elements moved by emotion to militate against moderation.
The Constitution acts to protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. It gives those citizens the right against self-incrimination. These two rights are confirmed within the first five amendments, indicating their significance. If we show fealty to the vision of the Founders in fighting against censorship and laws restricting gun ownership, we must be equally vigilant in resisting overzealous confiscation of property and prosecutorial excess.
Beyond that, the criminal code in all States of the Union requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus a true conservative should be on the front lines challenging jury verdicts when they rely on the good feeling they get from the prosecutor or the bad feeling they get from the defense lawyer; or when they react to the atrocity of the victim’s wounds or the arrogance of the defendant’s personality; or when they respond to the soaring rhetoric of the prosecutor or the heart-rending appeal by the defense attorney. If we want to throw the book at defendants, we must first go by the book in adjudging them.
In this particular case, there was only one thing which was well proven, namely that the defendant had known all along what happened to the child. Casey had sole custody of her daughter and she continued her regular schedule after the girl disappeared. When pressed after a month, she blamed the nanny. When it turned out there was no nanny, it became clear that she had full knowledge of her daughter’s fate. If she knew her daughter was dead, it was a good bet she had either caused the death or had been negligent in letting it happen.
That was it. There were no witnesses that she had ever treated her daughter badly. No witnesses of an altercation. No witnesses of a dead body. No witnesses of her moving a bulky or suspicious package. No witnesses of her dumping an object in the woods. The cause of death could not be determined by the autopsy. There was no blood anywhere. There were no fingerprints, no DNA, either on the body or on the duct tape which was said by the prosecution to have been nefariously employed. There was no blood or bodily secretions in the trunk of her car, only mysterious “smell molecules.” And there were some Google searches about chloroform, although no one proved that chloroform was used as a weapon nor that she had bought or made any.
All in all, if this quirky girl with the multiple fantasies and excuses committed a murder and cleaned up after herself, she managed to outsmart the best crime labs in the country. To see her as a master criminal who outperformed most of the famous killers of history is quite a stretch. With the prosecutors asking for a murder-one conviction and a death penalty, the jury had only one choice.
The same big-government who hate to give up control of your health and your business, your motorcycle helmet and your tobacco inhalation, who do not trust either Providence or individual citizens to arrange life on their own, cannot bear to walk out of the courtroom and say that the fate of this defendant was not given over to the purview of man. Mighty State has struck out and Casey will take a walk; a constitutional, if you will.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
W| 7.6.11 @ 3:35PM
"Casey had sole custody of her daughter and she continued her regular schedule after the girl disappeared. When pressed after a month, she blamed the nanny. When it turned out there was no nanny, it became clear that she had full knowledge of her daughter's fate. If she knew her daughter was dead, it was a good bet she had either caused the death or had been negligent in letting it happen."
From this alone a reasonable juror can and should have inferred that Casey caused the death of her child, either intentionally or recklessly negligent. Add to this that the two year old child was found in a swamp in garbage bags. Since Casey had sole custody of the child when she left her mother's house, you can infer that the child did not walk down to the swamp, put herself in a garbage bag, and jump into the swamp.
There is no direct evidence, meaning a witness who saw the killing. But there is a enough circumstntial evidence to convict.
To say this is a win for the constitution and conservatism is blasphemous. A two year old child was killed by her mother, and a stupid jury found her not guilty because there were no eyewitneses or evidence to the cause of death. How else does a child in a garbage bag in a swamp die?
David T| 7.6.11 @ 5:16PM
Yes, we can all agree that Casey Anthony was, in some fashion, responsible for the death of her child. But, as Mr. Homnick points out, the prosecution did not have a strong enough case for murder one.
Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 5:50PM
Personally I think they never proved Scott Peterson killed his wife either.
Lisa| 7.6.11 @ 6:52PM
"Personally I think they never proved Scott Peterson killed his wife either."
Before or after he was caught trying to flee to Mexico with $15,000 cash, survival gear, and blonde hair?
The innocent don't run; the guilty do.
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 6:16PM
But why kill her, if you can just run to Mexico? See how reasonable doubt works?
Cosmo| 7.6.11 @ 6:40PM
A horrible verdict like this requires a perfect storm of events:
1) Lazy jurors...Unwilling to take the time to weight the evidence...Much easier to just dismiss each piece of evidence on some fanciful basis..
2) Sequestered Jurors: Blame the prosecution for their incarceration...They want to go home..
3) Unethical defense attorneys..."Win at any price" mentality...They are officers of the court and are required to serve the cause of justice.
4) Incompetent judge: Should have declared a mistrial after defense attorneys failed to present any evidence of a drowning...and after the grandmother of the murdered baby obviously perjured herself...
5) Criminal defense attorneys: Suborned perjury in this case without any doubt.
6) Prosecution errors: Instead of misdemeanor counts of lying to police, should have filed felony obstruction of justice charges & tampering with evidence charges.
7) Caylee's aunt and uncle must file wrongful death case vs. Casey and make her testify under oath, like OJ had to.
8) State of Florida must file civil suit for the costs incurred investigating Casey's lies. And blocking any attempt by her to profit financially from her
crimes.
9) State of Florida must file felony charges of obstruction of justice against Casey, of perjury against the grandmother, and of subornation of perjury against Jose Baez.
Justice will be done....sooner or later..
Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:30PM
Unfortunately, there is a resonable doubt. That's all that's required.
When the Engine of the State turns on you, you will appreciate the thicket of laws.
Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:31PM
"reasonable." Sorry.
skip| 7.6.11 @ 10:11PM
I don't think 'reasonable' means 'beyond all', nor did the founding fathers. With definitions of 'reasonable' like 'showing sound judgment', 'having modest or moderate expectations', 'not making unfair demands',or 'sensible', that miserable excuse of a human is absolutely guilty. Wholly unintelligent and wholly dishonest liberalism strikes again. Up is down. Light is dark. Good is evil. Homosexuality is normal. Theft is charity. Abortion is liberty. Guilty is innocent.
W| 7.6.11 @ 10:37PM
Not questioning or criticizing the laws, especially the reasonable doubt. I am questioning the jury's failure to process the facts. Just saw the alternate juror on tv, he said there was an "accident," and the DA did not prove how the child died. There was no evidence of an accident. The child was found in a garbage bag in a swamp, last seen with her mother, and the child's hair was found in the mother's car trunk. What do you infer from that?
lost| 7.8.11 @ 9:34AM
Here is the thing casey was tried for murder one only. The prosecution did not make a case for murder one. If the prosecution had had other charges like child endangerment and or a lesser murder charge she most likely would have been found guilty of those if not both. As for finding the childs hair in the trunk of casey's car is not even close to evidences. If no hair was found there that would be of concern. This was not a strangers car where finding the child's hair would be out of place
W| 7.8.11 @ 10:21PM
How did the child end up in a garbage bag with duck tape in a swamp? If you believe that she put the child in a bag and threw the bag in the swamp, that is murder one. If you believe the child walked to the swamp, or an alien kidnapped her, then she is not guilty.
Connect the dots, that is what you do in a circumstantial evidence case. Casey took Calyee from her mother's house. Casey then spent 30 days lying about where Caylee is. Then Caylee is found in a swamp? What do you infer from this?
Bill| 7.6.11 @ 4:04PM
No doubt about 99.9999% of the American public were willing to bet their skid-marked skivvy shorts that she was guilty. That certainly seems to have been true of all the TV pundits who spoke on the matter.
Unfortunately for those folks, the standard of proof in a criminal case goes beyond that. We know Casey Anthony lied; we don't even know from the evidence presented at trial if the child was murdered or died from other causes.
I too am willing to bet my last dollar that if Casey Anthony vows never to spend a sleeping moment until the real killing of her child is apprehended, that killer will never be found unless and until Casey Anthony confesses. That doesn't mean there was proof of her guilt of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.6.11 @ 4:31PM
I am picturing Casey walking out of the courthouse.
There she is on the sidewalk, ALONE on the face of the earth.
No car, no money, no family, no credibility, no friend, no home.
She will certainly serve a "life sentence" under a false name, sealed in her aloneness.
jim arrison| 7.6.11 @ 6:46PM
True as it stands, but she is young and (reasonably) attractive. She'll manage. Quite honestly, I can't figure out why any of us really care about this (excpet in a purely human way).
Oldefarte| 7.6.11 @ 4:58PM
My theory of this case is that since there were 7 females and 5 males on the jury, that Florida is a liberal state [even though in the South, it has a majority of transient/non born & bred residents from such locales as NY, the northeast, the midwest and the west coast]. If memory serves, Florida voted for Obama even though the rest of the south voted for McCain, the Republican as is traditional. These 7 females on the jury are possibly liberal philosophically and therefore favor abortion [as a woman's right to choose]. Being so, they would be inclined to rationalize that thes young woman who was obviously burdoned/restricted by the presence in her over-active social/sexual life with this child, had the possible RIGHT to abort [post birth that is] this child's life. This child simply got in her way, as so it was a wuestion of her RIGHTS versus the child's, and naturally, the child's rights were secondary [in the mother's mind and in these female jurors'] to that of the mother's. Case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 5:48PM
Notice how the life of this little girl parallels that of a young Obama?
Stormzeye| 7.6.11 @ 5:04PM
Though not proven "innocent" Casey has not been proven "guilty". She, like her daughter, are now in God's hands and the judgement for Casey could still be terrible.
Quartermaster| 7.6.11 @ 5:31PM
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not, therefore Casey walks. That is not a miscarriage of justice when the prosecution decides to try a case with weak evidence. The prosecution should have known better. Now if something crops up that does show Casey guilty as original sin, too bad. They took their shot and now it's over.
They should have waited as they had no case to try against her. It was an utter waste of prosecution resources to try this case. If there is "blasphemy" here it was committed by the state.
skedaddle| 7.6.11 @ 6:25PM
Exactly right. The prosecutor had a weak case for murder. I think they could have proven child endangerment or neglect or something along those lines but not murder.
Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 5:45PM
I had this debate with Liberals before. There is a very real chance that given a jury of peers, Osama Bin Ladin or KSM would be found not guilty.
Certainly we could say that even the President of the United States biased the jury because he said that they were guilty. But as a juror I would have to shut out all opinions and the government would have to prove there case and if I could come up with a single scenario in which they are not guilty, then bingo - Not Guilty.
Never assume what a jury will do. In this case now we have nothing to assume, but that Casey saw her daughter drawn in the pool, then reluctant to report it, she decided to bury her nearby and tell nobody about it.
jim arrison| 7.6.11 @ 6:47PM
"single scenario" is not equal to "reasonable doubt"
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 6:17PM
Was with Casey Anthony and can again with any jury.
barry from st pete| 7.6.11 @ 6:04PM
As a retired lawyer who has seen a few trials in my day, I have argued (in this case and in others) that any murder trial that can't be presented by prosecutors in a week should never be brought. By definition, the case must be based on circumstantial evidence and elaborate scientific hypotheses -- and therefore invites the reasonable doubt that our system establishes as a hurdle for the Government.
c. j. acworth| 7.6.11 @ 6:28PM
I'm no "Leagal Beagle" but I wonder if the prosecution overreached going for murder 1 and seeking death. Would the jury have been willing to convict on a lesser charge?
Lisa| 7.6.11 @ 7:00PM
Of course she and her lawyers know what happened. If it was an accident (haha), she wouldn't have waited 31 days to report the baby "missing" or lied to the cops, much less, tossed, or had someone toss, the baby into a swamp like a piece of garbage. An innocent person doesn't destroy her family by accusing them of doing terrible things to her. That Casey and her lawyers were doing everything short of high-fives and fist-bumps in the court room after the dingbat jury announced its verdicts sickened me. The head lawyer said that there are no winners in this. At least he got that right. The biggest loser is his client.
somnolence| 7.6.11 @ 7:09PM
I believe the judge let the case get out of hand when he allowed the unfounded charge of child abuse against George Anthony to be uttered from the lips of Jose Baez. If I had been a juror I would have tied it up solely because of that, irregardless of judge's instructions, also noting the borrowing of the shovel from a neighbor, the smell of death, and the fictitious "nanny." This was a clear miscarriage of justice, and BTW I hope George Anthony sues the hell out of Baez.
Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:34PM
Ya Know, considering that Jose Baez's job was to defend his client, and he did so pro bono (or pro bozo, in this case), I'm not sure Casey's dad has much to stand on for a suit, but I'm not an attorney. However, to get a clearly guilty client off, the man is magnificent. I'd want him as my lawyer in a difficult case.
somnolence| 7.6.11 @ 9:01PM
Defamation of a witness's character is not an allowable defense without clear evidence. Speculation and hypotheses are taboo for the defense as well as the prosecution. Don't ever pick me for a jury and expect me to believe otherwise. I'll be glad to tell that to a presiding judge during the interview process, hoping all the while to not get picked. It used to be an honor to serve, but in light of the travesty displayed yesterday, screw it.
Andrew B| 7.6.11 @ 9:08PM
I think the standard in this case was not "reasonable doubt" but "why can't they prove it just like on C.S.I."
A young child's body is found wrapped in duct tape near her home. Her mother is, from all the evidence, a sociopath (what human gets a "Bella Vita" tattoo while their baby is missing, presumed dead?) The defense's case seemed to be "Sure, she's a horrible, evil, narcissistic psycho, completely incapable of remorse and totally committed to her own pleasure...uh...but she wouldn't do anything bad."
Twelve of my Floridian neighbors accepted that arguement, so the case is closed. Casey Anthony will go on to a long, lucrative career of lurid talk-shows and perhaps a spread in Hustler.
Sic transit.
weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:16AM
Defamation of a witness's character is not an allowable defense without clear evidence. Speculation and hypotheses are taboo for the defense as well as the prosecution. Don't ever pick me for a jury and expect me to believe otherwise. I'll be glad to tell that to a presiding judge during the interview process, hoping all the while to not get picked. It used to be an honor to serve, but in light of the travesty displayed yesterday, screw it.
oldfart| 7.7.11 @ 6:11AM
I could not believe that the prosecution went for murder one. Child neglect, abandonment etc, are the charges that could have been brought and would have stuck with ease. Murder one? Not a chance with the available evidence. The defense team did their job – frankly a rather easy job considering the apparent incompetence of the prosecution team. However, the prosecution may have been under tremendous pressure, because of the high profile of the case, to go for everything. How can you bring both murder and manslaughter charges at the same time? It was like the prosecution was throwing poo at the wall to see what would stick. For murder one you must prove things like intent and planning. I agree with a previous poster – this young woman does not have the intelligence to outsmart a competent prosecution and forensic lab. The jury did the right thing, based on what was presented in court – there would have been no way to convict the mom of the charges – as presented. I also agree, that the judge blew it by allowing heresy about the grandfather. What a very sad, perverted joke.
Personally, if not the mom – then who? But proving that is another matter.
One thing that I am glad about is that it is a good that determination of guilt or innocence in this country is not determined by the talking heads in the press.
Dacron Mather| 7.7.11 @ 6:41PM
"The Constitution acts to protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. It gives those citizens the right against self-incrimination. These two rights are confirmed within the first five amendments, indicating their significance...we must be equally vigilant in resisting overzealous confiscation of property and prosecutorial excess."
I hope these splendidly Constructionist sentiments inspire Jay and Chris Horner to indict themselves and the other Friends of Barratry at The American Tradition Institute , for verily, they have asked for it.
JLK| 7.8.11 @ 11:38AM
Chloroform was proven to be in an amount so large,it had to be introduced in massive quantity,cleaning the trunk with cleaning products can't get you there-nor will anything else in the natural world around us.
If Cindy searched chloroform,the first time she would have realized it was not the right word and not gone back to it 83 more times and certainly would not have bookmarked it.
Human cadaver dogs "hit" on Casey's car.They don't hit on anything else-even if by some miracle a mouse could get into her trunk to die.
The verdict defenders need to turn their brains on and start being intellectually honest.The hole in our system is an incompetent jury.
michael| 7.8.11 @ 12:50PM
It has been crystal clear from the beginning that the prosecution could not prove its case against Anthony beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury reached the only result it could. That Anthony has been "tried" vociferously in the media and found guilty in the court of public opinion shows why we need the jury system and why the jury system is the only real Constitutional protection the average citizen enjoys.
When OJ Simpson was tried for murder, everyone blamed "racism" for the not guilty verdict. In reality, the prosecution in that case presented no real proof either, and in that case as well, the jury acted properly.
JLK| 7.8.11 @ 1:38PM
The human cadaver dogs proved (yes,beyond a shadow of a doubt) a human being at least partially decomposed in Casey Anthony's trunk.Not that common of an occurence.The verdict defenders can't move this fact with a Cat bulldozer.
dave2| 7.10.11 @ 2:14PM
I kind of agree with the author about not enough evidence for murder one but he loses me when he describes her as "quirky" and seems to imply that someone else may be responsible. Quirky is dressing differently ,maybe writing some bad poetry and generally going against the norm. Driving around with your kid's body in the trunk is beyond "quirky". At best she is a psycho that got away with unintentionally killing her daughter and then lying about it.
superman| 7.10.11 @ 9:48PM
Never assume what a jury will do. In this case now we have nothing to assume, but that Casey saw her daughter drawn in the pool, then reluctant to report it, she decided to bury her nearby and tell nobody about it.
It is very great, my friend
http://www.summer-products.com
Occam's Tool| 7.25.11 @ 10:12PM
I am fortunate in that no one ever wants me to serve on jury duty. Further, my job is so necessary that I can always get out of it for that reason as well.