View From a Cop: Steve Rose Weighs in on Casey Anthony Verdict

I have received a lot of e-mails regarding Casey Anthony and the not-guilty verdict. Shocked, outraged, disbelief, critical breakdown in justice, all were used in the e-mails.

The public, now more than ever via television, Internet, and reality-reporting shows, get a look inside the courtroom. The problem is that a jury has to convict “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That isn’t as easy as it may sound in a case with such outrageous circumstances as a two-year-old child dead and the a mother who went out, partied and concealed the death. Plus accusations about Casey’s father being a pedophile, and it goes on and on.

The “court of public opinion” is a far cry from “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Television is about ratings and TV hosts like Nancy Grace, are smart people. They know exactly what the rules of the court are but the surrounding circus is a gold mine. It is there anyway, so why not do what they do?  Either way they win.

What is lost in the parade of outrageous breaking-news reports is that the fundamentals of the courtroom are the same. You have to prove it, regardless of the angle of the media presentation, to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn’t do that. They certainly proved Casey isn’t going to be a Mother of the Year candidate any time in the next 100 years but what they needed to prove didn’t get done.

I had a child-molestation case that went to a jury trial some 20 years ago. A 10-year old child was molested by his uncle on Christmas Day. Hideous to say the least. The suspect fled the state. He was located and returned to stand trial. I testified, the child testified and the mother of the child testified. I went out of the courtroom confident that I nailed this guy’s coffin (figuratively) shut.

The defense attorney didn’t have much experience in child-molestation cases, nor did the assistant district attorney. Then, the detectives had more training in that area than anyone. Following the testimony I was absolutely sure this guy was toast.

They found him not-guilty.

I couldn’t believe it. The child and his mother looked at me with disdain.

We put this kid, as well as his mother, through this harrowing courtroom experience, and throughout the trial, I told them this would turn out well in the end. It didn’t.

The jury could not convict him because of a lack of “physical evidence” which is consistent in rape cases.

Rape is hard, maybe impossible to prove on unsupported testimony. Child molestation doesn’t hinge on it. My opinion is that the prosecution didn’t properly drive that point to the jury. I think the jury had the impression that there was a need for the physical evidence - sperm, physical injury, etc. 

Being sequestered, the jury doesn’t get to sit and listen to the other testimony otherwise I would have been jumping up and down. It just didn’t happen and as a result, this child molester went free.

Regardless if the prosecution’s inexperience left a gap in the fact that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt, or if the jury had a misconception of the criteria, or whatever else, we failed to provide the justice that we promised.   

The prosecution in the Anthony case didn’t prove she killed the child. The tremendous and sometimes ridiculous media coverage of all aspects of this case led people to just sit in disbelief when the not-guilty verdict came in. 

Each juror has a different personality and you have to keep them focused on what it is that gets them to realize that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is met. It’s not about the emotional response from news coverage. What you saw on television doesn’t keep you focused on the absolute fundamental to get that conviction. We learned that in the O.J. trial.

One thing is for sure, it was a very sad moment.