The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Strange Verdicts, Casey Anthony and Murder Trials

    By Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:59pm | Social Justice

    I don't follow murder trials closely and I can't stand Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor who seems to think that no innocent people have ever been accused of a crime in America ever.  When juries acquit in what we outsiders are assured are "slam dunk" cases, I don't get angry about it.  It's pointless, after all, and the jury generally knows better than anybody whether or not a prosecutor has surmounted the "reasonable doubt" hurdle.

    That doesn't mean, of course, that I don't think juries are sometimes wrong.  Sometimes they convict the innocent.  Sometimes they exonerate the guilty.  Today, a Florida woman was acquitted on charges of murdering her daughter.  According to my Twitter feed, some folks are flabbergasted by this and some are angry.  Nobody seems to be saying, "maybe the jury's right and she didn't do it."  I didn't follow the story, so I have no opinion one way or another.

    I did have one very brief experience with a death penalty case, though, and it left me with a lot of sympathy for jurors in high stakes cases.  I was called to federal court in Brooklyn as a potential juror in the trial of Ronnell Wilson, who was being tried for murdering two undercover police officers during a black market gun sale in Staten Island in 2003.  The trial took place in 2007.  Three years before that, New York's State Supreme Court had declared the state death penalty law unconstitutional.  So rather than having the state prosecute Wilson, which would have made sense given that it was definitely a local crime (all of the incidents happened in Staten Island) they brought Wilson up on federal murder charges.  They were able to do this because the gun running aspect of the case broke federal laws.  But it was obvious that they wanted the federal government to handle the case so that they could pursue the death penalty.  It was an end run around the New York State Supreme Court and it worked.  Wilson was convicted and is now on death row.

    I'm anti-death penalty for all of the usual reasons.  I don't believe it deters crime, I don't believe that a government that I barely trust to maintain the highway system should have the power of life and death over criminals, I don't think a just and good society handles its problems in so violent a manner and I think that the ultimate penalty is most often meted out to the poorest defendants who are not always capably represented at trial.

    The first step in jury selection was to fill out a 75 page questionnaire that seemed designed to weed out four classes of individuals: racists, cop haters, anti-gun law people and anti-death penalty people.  Since I fell into the latter class, I had a choice.  I'm a pretty good and natural writer and I could have convincingly told the court what it wanted to hear regarding the death penalty.  Something along the lines of "I'm personally against it, but it's the law of the land and I'll do what the law requires," would have worked fine.  Then I could have stubbornly refused to participate in any verdict that would have led to the death penalty being imposed.

    There's a moral issue there, of course.  I'd have been lying, for one thing.  I'd have been trying to participate in the trial simply to disrupt it.  I would certainly be breaking any oath I'd be asked to take to uphold the law as written, rather than as I'd like to see it.  Jury nullification has dubious ethical grounding.  On the other hand, the way courts do things is immoral too.  Our society is divided on the morality of the death penalty so juries in death penalty trials should not be made up solely of death penalty supporters.  At least in federal death penalty cases the issue of capital punishment is up to the jury rather than the judge.  So I could have voted to convict on the merits and then against the death penalty during the sentencing debate.

    But in the end, I told them the truth which is that if they put me on that jury they were not going to get the death penalty. under any circumstances.  I never heard from them again after that.  I did get $40, though.  After I was sent home I read up on the case and followed the trial. There's no doubt that Ronnell Wilson was guilty.  It seemed like his defense team focused more on whether or not he intentionally killed two police officers or whether he was just trying to rob two guys who he thought were criminals trying to buy a black market gun from him.

    So I sometimes wonder what I would have really done, as a juror in such a high stakes criminal trial.  There's enough doubt in my mind that I don't get angry when jurors do unexpected things like acquit somebody who everyone believes is guilty.  These things are complicated.  I guess I'm also far more concerned about the innocent being punished than I am about people sometimes getting away with crimes. 

     

     

    Topics: 
    Social Justice

    Comments

    I don't believe it deters crime, I don't believe that a government that I barely trust to maintain the highway system should have the power of life and death over criminals, I don't think a just and good society handles its problems in so violent a manner and I think that the ultimate penalty is most often meted out to the poorest defendants who are not always capably represented at trial.

    That's succinct, and to the point. Beautiful.

    Recently, I was going to be on a jury regarding a traffic fatality. I don't believe capitol punishment was at issue, although I went ahead and disqualified myself, since the second question was if I had ever been involved in a traffic fatality. I had, so bye and thanks for your time.

    I'm not sure that I could have been impartial, though. If I am truthful with myself, most likely, no. One shouldn't lie during jury selection question as our system really does depend on impartial jurors.

     


    by bwakfat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:35pm

    My feeling was that Anthony was guilty of criminal neglect. She didn't care much for her daughter and probably caused her death. I doubt she was trying to kill the child, I think she just wanted to keep her quiet. But how to prove all that?


    by Donal on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:49pm

    I live in Florida and don't have cable so one of my local channels has had wall to wall coverage of it from the court room feed.  I am glad it is over with.  I don't think trials should be broadcasted like a reality TV show.  Clips during the news is enough.  She still faces sentencing for 4 counts of miss leading police.  I wonder if that family will ever heal.  


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:10pm

    I wonder how that sentencing will go. It seems unlikely that the judge will be lenient.

    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:16pm

    First, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? and

    Second, how can justice be served if it's turned into a public circus?

    I haven't followed the case nor care what verdict the jury reached simply because  it doesn't concern me. I have faith justice will prevail without me knowing every itty-bitty detail. There's more serious problems that require the public's attention. This was just a distraction.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:36pm

    Part of the reason death penalty is the good old "an eye for an eye" . We the people allow the government to exact vengeance. We want to get revenge. As comedian George Wallace says; "If two or more people said they did it, that's good enough for me."


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:32pm

    Ahh. Intelligent discourse on this media-laden case at long last! I share your beliefs on the death penalty, and for other reasons, as well. I, like you, would also be a doubtful selection on any murder case where the death penalty is an option.

    I have no idea how I got sucked into the Casey Anthony vortex, but I did - I watched nearly the entire trial. Given the fact that all that remained of the victim was a "a hank of hair and a piece of bone," the bags in which she was tossed away, and three pieces of duct tape, I became wholly intrigued by the forensics the prosecution still managed to produce. Like most who followed the trial, my verdict was "guilty."

    Since you posted the above, a few jurors on this case have spoken, and for me there is an entirely new debate afoot: is our justice system in the best of health? Two of the more vociferous jurors have stated that their verdict nauseated them. That begs the question of good conscience, but that isn't the only disturbing fallout of their decision. In the judge's instructions, he clearly laid out that the jury needed neither motive nor cause of death to establish guilt. Both of these jurors have said they couldn't convict because they had neither motive nor cause of death, so how could they convict? In the brief 10 hours they deliberated, I presumed perhaps one hour could've been given to the judge's instructions. Nearly six weeks of trial evidence, and not one of the 12 concerned requested anything for their deliberations: no depositions, no trial testimony, no pictures, no physical evidence - zero, zip, nada. According to courtroom reports, only one or two ever took a note, and then, even, it was brief. But perhaps the most troubling is the foreman himself stating he thinks Casey's father did it. Um... huh?

    Listening to jurors speak, hearing how little effort they put into these deliberations, hearing that they didn't understand their instructions (or even make an effort to understand them), and realizing that the jury foreman concocted his own murderer are making me truly wonder - ARE these my peers?  IS this system the best we can do?

    The jury's still out...

    ~Desdumona


    by Desdumona (not verified) on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:02am