July 7th, 2011
10:39 AM ET

Casey Anthony gets maximum prison time, could walk free in weeks

Judge Belvin Perry sentenced Casey Anthony Thursday to four years in prison - one year for each of her four convictions of lying to authorities - but with credit for time served and good behavior, she could be released as soon as this summer.

Denying a defense motion to reduce the four counts to a single conviction, Perry gave Anthony the maximum prison time he could by ruling that the four years be served consecutively. He also fined her $1,000 for each count.

A jury acquitted Anthony on the most serious charges Tuesday, including murder, in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, but convicted her on the four misdemeanor counts of lying to police.

FULL STORY
Post by:
Filed under: Casey Anthony • Crime
soundoff (41 Responses)
  1. AJ

    why does time served for writing bad checks count for this case? shouldn't it be 2 totally seperate sentences? 1.5 years for writing bad checks and 4 years for lying to police, that equals 5.5 years in prison? am i missing something?

    July 7, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Annmarie Scott

      I agree...I do the math including the good gain time and the time she has done and she should be in jail for at least another 1-1/2 years. Unreal!

      July 7, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • ken

      AJ ever got pulled over for speeding and told the cop you didn't know how fast you were going. so should you go to jail for 4 or 5 years for it. thats what you're saying so maybe you should judge yourself with the same harshness you judge others...

      July 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Veronica J.

    Yes, without a reasonable doubt she is guilty, she was the one who saw her daughter last when “supposedly” dropped her to “Zani the Nanny” who never existed, she was driving the car that week, she was lying for 31 days, she was partying and plying for 31 days, she was not sad or mourning for 31 days, at the contrary she was free and happy. To me that is without reasonable doubt guilty. Was there an accomplice, possibly, but that is with reasonable doubt unproven; if so she still is guilty. Four years is not sufficient. Justice was not served.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
  3. kenneth

    I think that it was a fair sentence.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • John G

      I right there with you Kenneth....

      July 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • John G

      I right there with you Kenneth.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • mike

      I don't agree with

      July 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Disgusted in RI

    I am so disgusted with the reporting of Jean-Vallez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace regarding the Casey Anthony Trial, enough not to watch HLN news anymore.These two have become tabloid reporters and should look at their reporting on this trial and then think very hard if they should be responsible for the actions they encouraged and help inflame in the protesters in FL. Especially Nancy, (who is a lawyer), should be responsible to explain to the public that the jurors did not know everything the veiwing audience did. Keep their personal feelings off the page and report as objectively as possible Guess TV ratings are more important.

    July 7, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • John G

      Both are opinionated Vigilantes to the core.

      it isn't News in the least, just like the Media pushing for the release of the names of the Jurors. To what end do they need those names other than to Hype up some more air time?

      It isn't anyones business who they are.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Julie

      IT SEEMS IT TAKES ALL KINDS TO MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND- EVEN FREE BABY KILLERS!!

      July 9, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Nora

    I place most of the blame at the feet of the Orange County Sherriff's department. They never investigated after several calls back in August from Roy Cronk, when there would have been more forensic evidence. Also, juror #3 shows that the jury clearly did not understand their duties. They were not charged with the punishment phase, only the verdict of guilty or not guilty. I think there should be some kind of IQ test to be sure that they understand what they are supposed to do.

    July 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
  6. ahaaa!!!

    Im sooo glad she got off and i wish all you whiners brain tumors to your children!

    July 7, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • JIM

      unworthy of comment

      July 8, 2011 at 12:26 am | Report abuse |
  7. Philip Porembski

    you know people shouldnt break the law so you know theres no reason for you to think people should break the law which you do . you could not do what you do which is put people in jail and prison if you did not think people should break the law when you know people shouldnt break the law.

    July 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Mike B

    The subheading of this article is a clue to the hysteria which comes from one of these high profile media trials.Being found not guilty means BEING INNOCENT PERIOD ! We all enjoyed our daily fix of this trial, as we did the O.J. Simpson trial. Calling the jurors idiots and morons because we disagree with the verdict is a waste of time.Our judgemental indignation feels really good,all the more to be careful with that particular emotion. The media pundits who are still saying she is guilty in their judgment should remember there are libel laws. As others have said some day she will be judged in afinal sense.

    July 11, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
1 2