Casey Anthony Trial - What Happened?

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

If you allow physical visitors/spectators into a trial, video should be fair game. If the visitors were only allowed to hear an audio feed, sure the press should be limited to that as well.

I see the least problem with what is actually going on in the courtroom. The problem is the dissemination of information on the evidence prior to the trial.

Interestingly, the problem with video cameras, in my experience, isn't so much with revealing on what happens at trial. That's a good thing - if nothing else, it gives people the opportunity to see that courtroom performances aren't what they are on TV, but are instead filled with "ah's" and "umms," and many awkward pauses.

The problem is more with practicalities. First, cameras can be pretty distracting (lights, noise, constant movement), take up a considerable amount of space, and for whatever weird pyschological reason seem to cause people to act differently than they otherwise would.

If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it. Broadcast it cspan style.

As far as pre-trial dissemination of evidence, it is what it is. As stated above, unless you want judicial proceedings to be conducted secretely, it's an inherent part of the system.

Again, like with lawyers, the media are just fulfilling a need or desire of the public.

 

[Henning]

If you allow physical visitors/spectators into a trial, video should be fair game. If the visitors were only allowed to hear an audio feed, sure the press should be limited to that as well.

I see the least problem with what is actually going on in the courtroom. The problem is the dissemination of information on the evidence prior to the trial.

I don't think so. As long as the court room is open for audit of the proceedings, there is no further benefit to be gained in justice by televising a trial. All it does is serves the interests of the media and a voyeuristic public, and I don't see anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to voyerism and to profit off the justice system. Court rooms are supposed to be about justice, not cheap programing filler for media outlets.

 

[wsuffa]

Interestingly, the problem with video cameras, in my experience, isn't so much with revealing on what happens at trial. That's a good thing - if nothing else, it gives people the opportunity to see that courtroom performances aren't what they are on TV, but are instead filled with "ah's" and "umms," and many awkward pauses.

The problem is more with practicalities. First, cameras can be pretty distracting (lights, noise, constant movement), take up a considerable amount of space, and for whatever weird pyschological reason seem to cause people to act differently than they otherwise would.

If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it. Broadcast it cspan style.

As far as pre-trial dissemination of evidence, it is what it is. As stated above, unless you want judicial proceedings to be conducted secretely, it's an inherent part of the system.

Again, like with lawyers, the media are just fulfilling a need or desire of the public.

Cameras can be mounted unobtrusively. It's done all the time for CCTV/security applications. They can even be remotely controlled including pan, tilt, zoom.

Of course there are some judges (like this one who certainly would not like cameras/open mics in the courtroom.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Cameras can be mounted unobtrusively. It's done all the time for CCTV/security applications. They can even be remotely controlled including pan, tilt, zoom.

Of course there are some judges (like this one who certainly would not like cameras/open mics in the courtroom.

Good point. What kind of quality do you get out of them in terms of video and audio? In my limited experience, security camera footage is good enough to tell whether a person is white or black, skinny or heavyset, short or tall, etc., but you can't really make out details. I don't know the first thing about audio.

And then to make it effective, you'd have to have either a TV channel or some kind of internet broadcast.

But, it could certainly be possible....

 

[weilke]

If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it. Broadcast it cspan style.

I dont think press cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. A video feed from those nifty remote controlled pod cameras that any press organization can tap into would be sufficient to assure the public character of the trial.

If you restrict it to presence at the trial, you limit the public to the unemployed and retired.

As far as pre-trial dissemination of evidence, it is what it is. As stated above, unless you want judicial proceedings to be conducted secretely, it's an inherent part of the system.

Doesn't have to. Information can be embargoed until the trial starts, wouldn't move the entire judicial process into secrecy. Restricting dissemination of evidence does not impair the defendants right to a public and impartial trial, it strengthens it.

The limitation should include the prosecutors, police and defense counsel, not just the press.

Again, like with lawyers, the media are just fulfilling a need or desire of the public.

Doesn't mean you cant put limits on what they are allowed to do, nothing in the constitution is absolute. As it stands right now, the freedom of the press (1st) interferes with the right to an impartial jury (6th) and due process (14th). It's not like the lower numbers count more, is it ?

 

[Everskyward]

And that probably was the source of entertainment for the legions of folks lurking in that thread.

This guy doesn't understand what I find entertaining about internet debate. He would be even more amused if he knew I was arguing about pee.

 

[wsuffa]

Good point. What kind of quality do you get out of them in terms of video and audio? In my limited experience, security camera footage is good enough to tell whether a person is white or black, skinny or heavyset, short or tall, etc., but you can't really make out details. I don't know the first thing about audio.

And then to make it effective, you'd have to have either a TV channel or some kind of internet broadcast.

But, it could certainly be possible....

Plenty fine quality from some of them. Think in terms of the quality from some of the HD consumer cameras. With the sensors we have now, the quality is only limited by the lens - but you can still get quality far better than standard broadcast grade before the HD transistion.

Provide the feed & let news organizations pick it up (for a share of the costs, a/k/a pool coverage) as they wish. I'm sure someone could/would make an internet site for the streaming video (I'm told it works for porn, why not courts?)

This guy doesn't understand what I find entertaining about internet debate. He would be even more amused if he knew I was arguing about pee.

****ed him off, 'eh?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I dont think press cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. A video feed from those nifty remote controlled pod cameras that any press organization can tap into would be sufficient to assure the public character of the trial.

If you restrict it to presence at the trial, you limit the public to the unemployed and retired.

That seems reasonable to me.

Doesn't have to. Information can be embargoed until the trial starts, wouldn't move the entire judicial process into secrecy. Restricting dissemination of evidence does not impair the defendants right to a public and impartial trial, it strengthens it.

The limitation should include the prosecutors, police and defense counsel, not just the press.

To an extent, I also agree that this is reasonable. The problem is that pre-trial proceedings can be very important to a few things: 1) the trial itself; 2) the current state of the law; 3) the future state of the law; and 4) the entire community/nation.

Consider something like a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop. The possibilities are far too numerous to go into here, but suffice it to say that a lot of Fourth Amendment law has developed out of trial judges' rulings on these kinds of situations.

At a hearing, you're going to have testimony, at least from the police officer - and that testimony might impact on things that are of legitimate, and present, public concern. That testimony might also be all of the "trial testimony," as well - meaning that the witnesses are going to say the same thing at the hearing as they will at the actual trial.

Maybe a better example would be a preliminary hearing, which is where the state is required to justify, by actual evidence/testimony, the charges filed. Sometimes these are also called probable cause hearings. In essence, it's a mini-trial held before the real trial, to justify (or reject) continuing on to the real trial.

How do you think a situation like that ought to be handled?

Doesn't mean you cant put limits on what they are allowed to do, nothing in the constitution is absolute. As it stands right now, the freedom of the press (1st) interferes with the right to an impartial jury (6th) and due process (14th). It's not like the lower numbers count more, is it ?

You run into some pretty complex issues here. First, I'll give you my opinion based upon what the law actually is, as opposed to based upon what I think the law should be.

Basically, based upon what the law actually is, I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on the pre-trial dissemination of testimony/evidence, provided that those restrictions are actually necessary to ensure a fair trial. I would apply those restrictions to the parties in court: basically, the prosecution, defense, and anyone controlled by them (e.g., police, PI's, etc.).

I don't think restrictions could be applied to third parties, such as media outlets, though. Except in incredibly rare circumstances (say a paper blows out the window of a lawyer's car and the news gets hold of it). It seems very problematic to me whenever you get into the issue of any kind of censorship, and while I'd be OK with it to actual parties, it seems very problematic to extend it to people who are not actually involved in the court proceedings.

The other thing I'd be uncomfortable with would be sealing access to the criminal court file, unless there were some kind of incredibly compelling reason for it (I can't think of any examples outside of juvenile law). What happens in court affects every single one of us; things actually happening or filed in court should not be concealed from the rest of us.

Anyway. I absolutely agree that "infotainment" and the circus atmosphere surrounding these kinds of trials is a problem. I just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.

 

[Everskyward]

****ed him off, 'eh?

It's not hard to do.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This one's even better:

 

[Bob Noel]

Maybe I missed it in the 129 replies in this thread, but how would this media circus stuff (or just TV cameras, or whatever) be necessary for the purpose of the trial, that is, determining whether or not the State makes the case?

Were trials 100 years ago considered secret because no TV discussions occurred?

Were trials 100 years ago inherently not fair?

 

[weilke]

Consider something like a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop. The possibilities are far too numerous to go into here, but suffice it to say that a lot of Fourth Amendment law has developed out of trial judges' rulings on these kinds of situations.

At a hearing, you're going to have testimony, at least from the police officer - and that testimony might impact on things that are of legitimate, and present, public concern. That testimony might also be all of the "trial testimony," as well - meaning that the witnesses are going to say the same thing at the hearing as they will at the actual trial.

Maybe a better example would be a preliminary hearing, which is where the state is required to justify, by actual evidence/testimony, the charges filed. Sometimes these are also called probable cause hearings. In essence, it's a mini-trial held before the real trial, to justify (or reject) continuing on to the real trial.

How do you think a situation like that ought to be handled?

I believe most pre-trial hearings (outside of stuff like sexual assault on a minor) are public at this time, right ? So are charging documents. I see that as part of a 'public trial' and as such it should be subject to being televised in the same c-span like way as the trial itself.

It is one thing to have evidence introduced in the formal setting of a prelimnary hearing, it is another to have actors in the case selectively release crime-scene photos to try the case in the press.

I don't think restrictions could be applied to third parties, such as media outlets, though. Except in incredibly rare circumstances (say a paper blows out the window of a lawyer's car and the news gets hold of it). It seems very problematic to me whenever you get into the issue of any kind of censorship, and while I'd be OK with it to actual parties, it seems very problematic to extend it to people who are not actually involved in the court proceedings.

The fact that someone is not directly involved in the proceedings doesn't mean they can't influence them and affect the rights of the either the victims or the defendants.

The other thing I'd be uncomfortable with would be sealing access to the criminal court file, unless there were some kind of incredibly compelling reason for it (I can't think of any examples outside of juvenile law). What happens in court affects every single one of us; things actually happening or filed in court should not be concealed from the rest of us.

Yeah that's funny 'outside of juvenile law'. Why do we extend the priviledge to be tried without press in the room to a 15 year old gang-banger who sliced someone open, yet a local business owner with much to loose is not allowed to have his trial for DUI under exclusion of the public ?

Anyway. I absolutely agree that "infotainment" and the circus atmosphere surrounding these kinds of trials is a problem. I just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.

The circus is nothing new, I would have to dig a bit, but back in the 20s there were some well publicized trials of mothers who killed their kids. Back then, you could get a morning and an evening paper, people would wait in line to get the evenings paper to read about the mornings court proceedings (either rooting for her to get the noose vs. being set free).

 

[weilke]

Were trials 100 years ago inherently not fair?

A lot of them were not fair. Defendants got ruffed up by the police until they confessed, prosecutors witheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and the rich were able to simply buy off the jurors to get away with murder.

The good old days were anything but good.

 

[raider]

evidence - child missing/dead? presume dead and go partying. case closed.

 

[ScottM]

evidence - child missing/dead? presume dead and go partying. case closed.

What is that evidence of? Other than being a bad parent and white trash it is hardly evidence of a crime.

 

[Bob Noel]

A lot of them were not fair. Defendants got ruffed up by the police until they confessed, prosecutors witheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and the rich were able to simply buy off the jurors to get away with murder.

The good old days were anything but good.

I debated whether or not to acknowledge the reality that some trials weren't fair 100 years ago - I was hoping to avoid the obviously irrelevant diversion. But the point of the question is to ask given the implication that lack of TV coverage today means the trial would be unfair, would that mean all trials were unfair before TV coverage?

Or, how could a trial 100 years ago possibly by fair? Is TV coverage/Media circus a necessary condition for a fair trial?

 

[weilke]

I debated whether or not to acknowledge the reality that some trials weren't fair 100 years ago - I was hoping to avoid the obviously irrelevant diversion. But the point of the question is to ask given the implication that lack of TV coverage today means the trial would be unfair, would that mean all trials were unfair before TV coverage?

A hundred years ago, the trial (and hanging) would happen a couple of weeks after the arrest and you just walked over to the courthouse to watch the proceedings. Trials were usually short as you didnt have daylong testimony from the technician who calibrated the DNA sequencer or the google engineer about who searched for what on the interwebs. Arguably, it offered a more public venue that way than the circuitous process it has turned into these days.

 

[wsuffa]

The circus is nothing new, I would have to dig a bit, but back in the 20s there were some well publicized trials of mothers who killed their kids. Back then, you could get a morning and an evening paper, people would wait in line to get the evenings paper to read about the mornings court proceedings (either rooting for her to get the noose vs. being set free).

Or their parents. IIRC the press coverage of Lizzy Borden was supposed to have been quite the spectacle.

Lizzie Borden took an axe
Gave her mother 40 whacks,
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father 41.

 

[Steve Foley]

Good point. What kind of quality do you get out of them in terms of video and audio? In my limited experience, security camera footage is good enough to tell whether a person is white or black, skinny or heavyset, short or tall, etc., but you can't really make out details. I don't know the first thing about audio.

And then to make it effective, you'd have to have either a TV channel or some kind of internet broadcast.

But, it could certainly be possible....

Suffolk Law does a webcast and archives all the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court oral arguments. (http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/ ). The quality is OK. You could probably do a trial with a camera on the judge, one on the witness box, one on the defense table, and one on the prosecution table. Assuming the court is fairly well lit, there shouldn't be any problems. If the TV studios don't like the quality, tell them to send in a sketch artist.

 

[denverpilot]

A few days ago I was very happy. My social streams went nuts with this silly court case's "news" and I said, "Casey who?"

Proof positive I haven't been watching the news lately. Awesome. I have a little bit of a real life.

 

[pilot_dude]

Who is the vile wretch on prior to Nancy (OMG!) Grace?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I believe most pre-trial hearings (outside of stuff like sexual assault on a minor) are public at this time, right ? So are charging documents. I see that as part of a 'public trial' and as such it should be subject to being televised in the same c-span like way as the trial itself.

It is one thing to have evidence introduced in the formal setting of a prelimnary hearing, it is another to have actors in the case selectively release crime-scene photos to try the case in the press.

Agreed as to both.

The fact that someone is not directly involved in the proceedings doesn't mean they can't influence them and affect the rights of the either the victims or the defendants.

Again, I agree. The problem is that "prior restraints," as they're known in the law (a gag order, for instance), are considered pretty severe.

I guess I just don't much like the idea of saying "you guys who aren't part of this case, don't talk about it" very much.

Yeah that's funny 'outside of juvenile law'. Why do we extend the priviledge to be tried without press in the room to a 15 year old gang-banger who sliced someone open, yet a local business owner with much to loose is not allowed to have his trial for DUI under exclusion of the public?

Well, with your example, that 15-y.o. is going to be charged as an adult, and his trial will be open to the public.

The juvenile law exclusion is designed more for the 10-y.o. who's shoplifting. If that kid can be taught right from wrong, maybe that becomes a one-time thing; should we give a 10-y.o. a criminal record, and doom him to a life of menial jobs, for a one-time thing?

The circus is nothing new, I would have to dig a bit, but back in the 20s there were some well publicized trials of mothers who killed their kids. Back then, you could get a morning and an evening paper, people would wait in line to get the evenings paper to read about the mornings court proceedings (either rooting for her to get the noose vs. being set free).

Yup. What is new, in my opinion, is the Nancy Grace type of stuff. The selling of hate; I'm not sure how to describe it other than that. It does no one any good other than the people making a profit off of it.

Nevertheless, as I think I mentioned above, the fact that there's a profit in it I think tells us that there's at least a portion of society that wants to be fed that kind of stuff. And I don't know what you do about that.

 

[pilot_dude]

Why was she not released today? If she was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 4 years, she would have been released after 2 (assuming good behavior). Seems the judge may not have agreed with the verdict.

 

[tonycondon]

cnn says she has 6 days left

 

[silver-eagle]

The problem with having the media in the courtroom is the public gets to see snippets of the trial THEY want you to see. What they show you is done, not for justice, but for media share which translates to revenue via commercials and additional customers. Also, since it is so skewed, and does not limit the reporting to only when the jury is in the room listening to the testimony, the public gets a biased view of the proceedings.
If it were broadcast live and uneditied, the public probably would not even watch. They're only watching for the salacious or gory details; which in this case included Anthony being molested by Dad; Dad and his girlfriend; and the possibility of viewing the pictures of the dead body.
That the jury arrived at the verdict they did doesn't immediately surprise me given the fact that during an average day of court, they may have been in the room 60% of the time. From what I heard along the line, I don't agree with them but I heard WAY more than they did.

 

[weilke]

Why was she not released today? If she was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 4 years, she would have been released after 2 (assuming good behavior). Seems the judge may not have agreed with the verdict.

She had a prior check-fraud conviction, part of the 3 years she spent in jail was for that. According to the judges estimation of how much 'good time' and 'credit time' she'll get by the jail, she should be out by august.

 

[Henning]

Why was she not released today? If she was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 4 years, she would have been released after 2 (assuming good behavior). Seems the judge may not have agreed with the verdict.

Out process isn't instant, and Justice is not swift... What a judge thinks about a juries verdict is immaterial and meaningless and I doubt is involved in this.

 

[pilot_dude]

She had a prior check-fraud conviction, part of the 3 years she spent in jail was for that. According to the judges estimation of how much 'good time' and 'credit time' she'll get by the jail, she should be out by august.

Concur. However, had this other deal not been hung on her she would have already earned enough "credits" for release. Or so it seems.

 

[pilot_dude]

Out process isn't instant, and Justice is not swift... What a judge thinks about a juries verdict is immaterial and meaningless and I doubt is involved in this.

See post above.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Why was she not released today? If she was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 4 years, she would have been released after 2 (assuming good behavior). Seems the judge may not have agreed with the verdict.

Good time isn't always a strict day-for-day credit. Although it varies a lot between states, you can get it for a variety of activities (good behavior, working in the jail, educational opportunities). And, you can have it revoked for violating the jail rules - don't behave yourself, and might lose your good time and double your sentence on the spot. And some states have limits on how much you can get - 5, 10, 20 days a month, whatever.

 

[weilke]

Concur. However, had this other deal not been hung on her she would have already earned enough "credits" for release. Or so it seems.

Probably.

I have CNN running in the background: out next wednesday.

 

[Florida Cracker]

I was reading the news and discover this little bit of dishonesty, just now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&hp

Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.Sgt. Kevin Stenger, a computer forensics expert, testifying.





The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

Why would the prosecutor let this little bit of truth fail to see the light of day? Sounds a lot like a prosecutor with a big problem coming up.

 

[weilke]

Why would the prosecutor let this little bit of truth fail to see the light of day? Sounds a lot like a prosecutor with a big problem coming up.

It would only be a problem for the proscecutor if it related to the charges she was convicted on.

 

[Florida Cracker]

It would only be a problem for the proscecutor if it related to the charges she was convicted on.

I seem to think the prosecutor has to provide info exculpatory information to the defense. If this report is true, I wonder what happens. I

I read, today, that the state prosecutor in Orlando has a 21% conviction rate. That seems way too low and might point to why they lost such a high profile case.

 

[weilke]

I seem to think the prosecutor has to provide info exculpatory information to the defense. If this report is true, I wonder what happens.

Yes, but at this point in the process (after the conviction) the remedy for failing to turn exculpatory evidence over under the 'Brady vs. Maryland' concept is that the defendant can use this in his appeal of the conviction. For one, she wasn't convicted of any of the charges where the internet search plaid a role, secondly Casey Anthony will not appeal a verdict that set her free.

I read, today, that the state prosecutor in Orlando has a 21% conviction rate. That seems way too low and might point to why they lost such a high profile case.

Conviction rates are smoke and mirrors.
- If you have a police department that conducts many sting operations, you can boast with a high conviction rate.
- If you allow many 'winnable' drug cases to be resolved with some sort of alternate resolution mechanism (e.g. NY offers something called 'adjudication contemplating dismissal' based on some conditions like rehab), you are going to have a low conviction rate.