On the drive to work this morning
Jul. 6th, 2011 10:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrs_sweetpeach
I found myself thinking about the Casey Anthony verdict and someone's report that the jury wouldn't even look at Casey after they rendered their verdict on my way in to work this morning. It occurred to me that refusal spoke volumes and that what this case needed was a third option -- the Not proven verdict available to courts in Scotland. As the wiki entry for Not proven states, "the result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-06 04:14 pm (UTC)I hadn't heard about the jury body-language, but it does fit with my ex recto guess yesterday that the jury probably did think she was guilty but had just enough doubt to consider the prosecution's case not proved.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-06 03:03 pm (UTC)Personally, I think the state made a mistake in going for a murder one conviction. If it hadn't been a death penalty case, I think they could have gotten a conviction. Negligent homicide or something.