July 7th, 2011
01:05 PM ET

Toobin: Judge made statement with Anthony sentencing

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin calls the four-year sentence Judge Belvin Perry slapped on Casey Anthony a surprise but says the judge likely was making a statement in giving her the maximum jail time.

Perry on Thursday sentenced Anthony to one year behind bars on each of four counts of lying to police concerning the death of her daughter, Caylee. She also was fined $1,000 for each count.

“Most people convicted of misdemeanors do not get prison time in Florida or anywhere else," Toobin says.

Despite the sentence, Anthony won't spend much more time incarcerated. She got credit for the time spent in custody since her arrest, almost 1,000 days.

Before the court gave Anthony's official release date, Toobin speculated that she could be free in less than two months once credit for good behavior also was considered. But it appears Anthony got a bigger break she'll be out in a less than a week. A court spokeswoman said her release date would be Wednesday.

Anthony has served about three years already. And it seems, Toobin said, the judge was intent on making sure some kind of punishment had been handed down in the case.

"This judge was clearly appalled at the nature and content of the lies Casey Anthony told to the police," he says. "We are all reminded about just how sinister and awful these comments were."

Authorities said Anthony lied about whether her daughter was missing. Her other lies included claims that Caylee was in a nanny's custody, that she had a job at Universal Studios and that she had received a phone call from Caylee.

Toobin said that while Anthony's criminal law troubles may be over, she could be involved in civil litigation much longer.

Zenaida Gonzalez has filed a defamation lawsuit against Anthony. Authorities questioned Gonzalez in Caylee's disappearance after Anthony said a nanny by that woman's name had kidnapped the child. Gonzalez denied ever meeting Anthony.

Florida officials also are asking that Anthony repay the state for the enormous cost of investigating the case. A private firm that helped in the child's search wants its money back, too.

Lawsuits could linger for years, Toobin says, but he doubts they'll have much effect.

"I will be surprised if Casey Anthony ever ends up paying anyone," he says.

Post by:
Filed under: Casey Anthony • Crime
soundoff (1,385 Responses)
  1. kimball

    Good behavior, really? REALLY???

    July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Acaraho

      Sometimes convicted murderers get released early for good behavior. Look it up.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Where'sJackRuby'sRelatives???

    Michael Vick-GUILTY Casey Anthony-NOT GUILTY

    July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Buddget

      mikle vick is a creep just like cayce

      July 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • sciihs1958

      good user nic and good question.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Vick killed dogs. Those are more valuable than a child to most of the liberals here. Heck, animals have more rights to be on this planet than any of us humans according to the liberals. Vick is lucky they didn't execute him... LOL

      July 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      The Vick case and the Peterson cases had different verdicts because they evidence. Not because of evil liberals who want children dead. Grow up.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Doug Shlong

    she did commit murder she MANIPULATED THE WHOLE SYSTEM

    July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jeff S

      Since you saw it happen perhaps you should have called the police and testified as to such.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ed

      So Jeff, you're what's wrong with the legal system. Since we didn't see a video or see her do it, then she's not guilty. In that case, release ALL criminals because I didn't see them commit the crime.

      BTW: THERE WAS EVIDENCE! There was proof that she was killed and not accidentally. Casey LIED about her daughter being missing. DUH.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
  4. devaugh

    There are plenty murders walking the street and she will be one of them. What saddens me the most is a 2yrsold little girl didn't get justice. Shame on the 12 jurors who let her go. All they are doing is selling their story for Disney World tickets for their whole family and making money . All Caylee got was her poor little body dump in the woods and animals gwaning on her bones. While her GUILTY mother smirks in court knowing she got away with murder. I don't want to see Casey, her mother, father,or Lee again on t.v. giving their story. They and all 12 jurors are guilty as I am concern. The only good thing is she didn't get out of jail today looking all made up. If any juror couldn't see she was guilty they had no business being on the juror no way. Caylee may have not gotten justice down here but she will when Jesus returns. We love you Caylee.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • elle

      The jurors aren't out selling their story. You don't know what they went through. They were instructed to decide based on evidence. They were confused about reasonable doubt given questions about accidents.
      I think she's guilty, but I think its terrible to hate the jurors. Don't worry, life will pay Casey back if need be

      July 7, 2011 at 5:20 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Chris

    Here's the problem with our system. Technology has become so good that it actually be hurt cases. Nowadays, people expect magic from crime scene investigators. They expect DNA samples to be found and make a perfect match and for autopsy's to show exactly how someone tied. But the truth is that is not always reality. Our advances and make reality from TV shows like CSI have us believe that is the norm. There are times, like this one, where you simply can't get that perfect DNA or cause of death. But does that mean it did not happen or you can't convict? No? If this case happened 30 years ago, she would have been convicted. Expectations are too high.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie Beach

      true Chris..and the jury was in too much of a hurry to get home and probably too mentally unsophisticated to understand what the prosecution was telling them about just what you are saying..

      July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      If this case happened 30 years ago, perhaps a minority seen in the area would have been convicted of it–with no DNA to exonerate (years later, of course). So, I'd rather keep the technology. It's better than 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      I agree the could be confused about reasonable doubt due to csi effect. But the prosecution needs to explain to them that doubt about a certain aspect of forensics does not always equal doubt about the whole picture. this prosecution did not connect the dots well and focus on the big picture.They spent alot of time on flimsy forensics and made it seem crucial. Good prosecutors will learn to deal with this. just like they learned to deal with fingerprints and other changes in technology.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Report abuse |
  6. roseybaxter

    One of the jurors was interviewed and said not guilty doesnt mean she is innocent. These people are a disgrace right along with that evil sociopath.
    Remember how the editor of OJ's book got fired for wanting to publish his book – I see this will happen with her too. Go away Casey Anthony because I won't be watching, buying a book/magazine or listening to you at all.

    She should be locked up.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Marc

      The jurors did their civic duty. If the evidence does not exist, it is NEVER the jury's "duty" to speculate, and some of them have consciences. They are brave for making the necessary decision despite the public outcry. Blame the criminal instead. Blame the prosecuation for not presenting a better case, or for bringing the wrong charges. But the only "disgrace" is that so many are fully ignorant of what it means to have the best justice system in the world, even when verdicts like this occasionally come up.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • kait

      marc- the best justice system? we let monsters roam among us, we feed and house monsters..really we should be exterminating undesirables and animalistic humans right out of our society..were going to kill ourselves with kindness and liberalism. you must feel so smart.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • debi

      One could look to the Italian government and the treatment that Amanda Knox is getting to see that we have an excellent justice system. Be thankful and grateful that hopefully you never have to sit in their seats.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • JB

      "should be exterminating undesirables and animalistic humans right out of our society"

      What is your definitinon of "undesirable" and "animalistic" and how do you suggest our society objectively enforce this?

      Your comment doesn't seem that well thought out.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      roseybaxter
      They were SUPPOSED to find her not guilty, even if they did not believe she was innocent, -if they had reasonable doubt. THAT IS the civic duty. Its an imperfect system, but they followed their instructions and they are not bad people.
      Americans are so uneducated about their own system and its always those people who want "freedom" who complain. But the system was set up to protect people from the government. to give maximum rights and proven wrong convictions. The Price is that sometimes people who shouldn't go free do. Its like a soldier dying for our freedom. Its unfair. Its horrible. But don't smear the jurors.
      Life will pay Casey back and it will always follow her -that should satisfy people.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
  7. WemissyouCaylee

    where is the justice for caylee's death? what's going to happen now?
    Poor little Caylee, everyone are so focus if Casey will become rich with books! who cares! She is the ONLY ONE who knows what happened with Caylee, she's the MOTHER! If I can call her like that.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • debi

      So you knew Caylee? WemissyouCaylee – really? People need to stop acting as though this child was theirs.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      I feel that she is guilty but I beleive the jury did what they thought the law required. The justice system is imperfect-but that's life. Casey will have to face alot in life. I really want to know what happened to Caylee and I hope that follows Cayse and that she is paid back by life for this. I don't think she will get to party and have fun. And that's some justice.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Summer

      Dag nabbit good stuff you whippsernappers!

      July 28, 2011 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse |
  8. wa wightman

    OK These fokes cannot help it. Dont you remember a few years ago when they did not know how to VOTE.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • pathetic

      I was totally disgusted with the behavior I saw of Floridians through this whole ordeal. Hopefully, they aren't mostly like that and only the nut jobs were called for jury duty. No manhood displayed at all, and the women acted like stupid, flippant bimbos. No sense of honor or obligation to civic duty whatsoever. They mumbled and slurred around when asked questions, instead of loudly and clearly answering yes sir or no mam. Constantly being asked to speak up. These are GROWN ADULTS pulling this crap. The guy that was held in contempt should have his picture plastered all over as a testament to what a little boy in a grown mans body really looks like.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim from Toledo

      What is a "foke"?

      Pretty funny for you to to criticize these poor FOLKSfor being a little dim.......

      July 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Bradly D

    Nancy Grace should be sued for inciting this case. The media has to stop trying people when they do not have a clue what they are saying. STOP NANCY GRACE!

    July 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • dawn

      I watched the nancy grace show for the first time a few months ago. I couldn't believe it when I found out she was a REAL lawyer and judge. I thought she was just a drama queen actress doing theatrics.

      Nancy Grace new EXACTLY what she was doing with this case. She was certain from the beginning that Casey was guilty and she wanted to make sure that regardless of the outcome of the trial that Casey's life would be miserable from here on out. The only way to make that happen was to harp on the case and have her name and picture plastered all over t.v. for years so that she becomes a household face and name associated with villainy.

      All I have to say is that Nancy Grace had better hope and pray that Casey really IS guilty, otherwise she is going to have alot to answer for herself come judgement day.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim from Toledo

      Couldn't agree more. An ignorant woman preaching ignorance to anyone that will listen. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that listen to her B.S. and take it as gospel.....very scary.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Guy

      "inciting this case" What does that mean? This is a story about a mother who murdered her child and got away with it because of 12 incompetent jurors. You don't need a cause of death for a murder charge! People are convicted of murder without a body being found. This is a study in stupidity. Our legal system failed us.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      I agree that the presumption of guilt is in favor of any consideration of innocence when it comes to the way Nancy Grace conducted herself through this ordeal. Preaching hate always incites others to hate and become judge and jury all in one. Vote for another country's legal system and see how far you get! If you're falsely accused of something, you'll be cherishing the fact that our legal system works the way it does.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • yeasayer

      I agree with GUY. People have been convicted of murder when no body has been found, Common sense needs to be used. There is no reasonable doubt in this case. Have the Anthony's hired a PI to find the "real" killer? No, because they know who it is. If they want to handle it privately, fine, then why do\id they drag the public into it in the first place, costing time, effort and resources?

      July 7, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Isabella

    everyone is giving her too much time and credit in the news.
    she will pay when she has to face God.
    and she has had way way too much media time.
    forget her. lets talk about important things in the world.
    how about the fires, floods, and war, we need to get our people home
    and get our economy back on track, and let her rot.
    hell is where she will end up, i am sick of seeing her face on every page
    and everytime i turn on the news.
    media has made her important, thats what shes always wanted, all the attention.
    she may be free for now, but karma will come back on her.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • haha

      st it is .. dont worry God will show the jury the guilty way.. now it is dont worry God will get her..lol There is no God

      July 7, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      If she repents, then you're out of luck on your wish for vengeance.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Jim

    1. The jury wasn't blind. They were bound to an impossible standard of "Beyond any reasonable doubt" by the prosecution's quest for capital murder. The evidence simply didn't support the standard, and the defense was able to produce "reasonable doubt." Members of the jury had no choice but to acquit, even though the verdict "sickened" them, to quote juror #3.
    2. This isn't about race, @che-3. Don't try to paint it black or white.
    3. @Daniel Michael, I'm pretty sure right wing/ left wing ideologies have nothing to do with this either.
    IMHO, this is simply a matter of someone getting away with murder because she was able to obfuscate and lie for enough time to allow most of the evidence to decompose into the swamp.
    Okay, bring on the criticism...

    July 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • sciihs1958

      Listen to the 2 juror interviews. Jury was ignorant and selfish. They saw each other as friends and didn't want to disagree with each other and they wanted to give the judge a unanimous verdict. The jury could have deadlocked with 6 on each side and that would have created a mistrial. Instead they whine n cry about how how it was to find Casey not guilty, then plan word games that not guilty does not mean innocent as they wing off to a media paid trip to Disney World. Jurors are trash and deserve to know what the rest of the public thinks of their verdict.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim from Toledo

      Jim – your opinion is absolutely correct in my mind.

      1958 – you are clearly a fool that has no ability to reason practically. "jurors are trash"....really? They did their job correctly – they gave the only possible verdict they could give based on the evidence they were presented with........like it or not, they got it right.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • hoy

      Actually tim, if the jurors deadlocked their verdict and it did go to a mistrial wouldn't she be able to go on trial again in the future? I'm not talking from experience, just asking. That would allow for more evidence (if there is any) to be used against her in the future. Now its just over right? So if the jury really did believe she was guilty, why not just push for a mistrial if they really did believe she was not guilty and was not innocent?

      July 7, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Hoy: good question. Answer, I think, is that Judge Belvin Perry ran such a clean trial because he wanted DEARLY to avoid the time and expense of another trial. How many times did the defense motion for mistrial? 6? 8? -Perry made darn good and sure there were no grounds for appeal, much less mistrial.
      In a way, it's too bad, too, because if this had gone to another court, the prosecution probably wouldn't have set such lofty goals. A conviction on 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter would have been preferable to Tuesday's outcome.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  12. This is why she got Not Guilty

    The ONLY reason she got not guilty is because the prosecution tried to charge her with too high of a crime for the lack of evidence they had! Had they charged he with less than 1st degree murder and sought life in prison instead of the death penalty then the chances of her being behind bars would have been greater. It probably sickened the Jury to hand down this verdict (a good indicator why none of them want to speak) but they really did do the right thing. There simply was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she commited 1st degree murder. The prosecution is the one who let this sick person free. This was a slamdunk for defense. Any Criminal Law Lawyer would tell you that Lack of Evidence + Too High of a crime charge = a not guilty verdict.
    Now instead of hating so much, how about feeling bad for little Caylee and a family that has been ripped apart and will NEVER be the same. Karma will get Casey....

    July 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Acaraho

      Based upon the evidence a lesser charge would also not have stuck unless it was involuntary manslaughter and if convicted she probably would have served less than 10 years.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      Great points made. Everyone has to realize that handing down a guilty verdict for a possible death sentence is a very severe and emotional thing to do. It's easy playing arm-chair quarterback but when you're the one actually playing the game, it's completely different. The jury had to acquit back on reasonable doubt. You cannot sentence a person to death on anything if there is the slightest doubt. The death sentence never should have been applicable in this case. This isn't the wild west anymore and you cannot strap a person on a table with this flimsy case. She isn't a mass murderer. Granted she made huge mistakes but that does not mean she deserved the death penalty.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Yup. Perfectly stated.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • BillyBob2010

      The "lack of evidence" you mention is because Casey allowed it to disappear (or decay) by letting her daughter rot in a swamp for 30+ days. Now who's fault is they couldn't determine cause of death? Maybe the person who killed her daughter and wouldn't tell the when and how. Some of you amaze me with your "I know she probably did it but there wasn't enough evidence". Numerous people smelled decomposition in her car, duct tape on a childs face (I guess she put that on her after she drowned), not notifying ANYONE about her daughters disappearance, the list goes on and on.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Minos

      Billy Bob nailed it. The rest of you are as profoundly stupid and incompetent as the jurors. You so called legal experts are pathetic - you don't know the difference between "Reasonable doubt" and "A reason to doubt". This is the failure of the moron jurors and the rest of you dolts who would release EVERY murderer who avoided be video taped in the act and who disposed of the body well enough to let it rot before anyone could medically determine the precise cause of death. Americans on average are apparently too stupid and impressionable to be competent jurors.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim from Toledo

      minos – it's tough to take a person that calls every one an "idiot" or a "dolt" seriously.

      Anybody that believes their opinion is the only one that could possibly be correct is as foolish as the names they choose to call others.

      IMHO – Casey Anthony probably killed her daughter. I also believe the jurors gave the correct verdict based on the case they were presented with. Every now and then, somebody gets away with a horrible deed – but blaming the jurors because there was no evidence is just silly.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lyle Kauman

      Thank you, Tim from Toledo, for eloquently stating the obvious ....

      July 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Minos, if you'd ever served on a jury in a capital case, you wouldn't be slinging around words like "stupid" or "Ignorant." Your condescending remarks reveal your own ignorance.
      Those jurors had to play by a set of rules that you obviously don't understand – the legal constrictions that bound their decision AND their analysis of the evidence were quite severe due to what was at stake (death penalty). I've read Marcia Clark's take on this, too – and your parroting of her opinion about "reasonable doubt/ reason to doubt" doesn't hold water, at least not in Belvin Perry's courtroom. He was trying to, in his lengthy admonissions to the jurors, avoid any chance of interpretation that might lead to mistrial or appeal.

      July 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
  13. cjennis

    I'm sorry but since the start of this horrible story and that god awful story about Caylee drowning the only piece of evidence i needed was the DUCT TAPE. If your child drowned why would you put duct tape on their mouth? I've always believed that she was using chloroform at night when she went out to knock Caylee out and she would put her in her trunk with DUCT TAPE over her mouth in case she woke up and one night she used too much Chloroform and it killed poor Caylee. I believe they had evidence the duct tape came for the Anthony home so there you go JURY what else do you need. I've seen people go away for a lot less. To me the DUCT TAPE says it all.

    We as American’s have got to do something about all these babies dying. I'm a mother of one boy and I just work in insurance I don't know about making bills or passing any but President Obama or someone needs to make better laws because everyday I look under the Justice tab on this website and everyday there is at least one story of a parent or boyfriend killing a baby and it has got to STOP.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jim

      cjennis, I couldn't agree more. Our society's gotten sick, and the most hideous symptom is manifested in all these kids. I'm a father, and this trend is making me both ill and angry. It just ain't the same world I was raised in.
      The worst part about this case was the lakc of evidence, "Cause of Death" being the most significant. Without proof of what caused Caylee's death, the jury couldn't convict, duct tape or no duct tape. Every body "knows" Casey did it – they just can't prove it in a court of law.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Acaraho

      Who knows? Maybe she duct-taped the child's mouth because she couldn't close her lips post-mortem.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • irbsod

      So you would have been happy with a guilty verdict right? Then you must accept the not guilty verdict that was given. If you don't you are irrational and a little frightening.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lyle Kauman

      ... and maybe it could have been proven had the prosecution developed a sounder case, i.e., stronger arguments based of more definitive evidence. We are a society that holds "innocent until proven guilty" as a standard, and "proven" is exactly that .... not surmised, not felt, not extrapolated as an outcome of "common sense", but proven. And you're right that the violence in our society has gotten out of hand, whether perpetrated by boyfriends or girlfriends, fathers or mothers, or any and all of us. It is time to stop, but we're those imperfect humans that have always failed to bring an end to the problems that kill us. So it goes. As for Casey, she'll have to live with herself and what she's wrought, likely in painful and difficult manner, for the rest of her days. Lord help us all!

      July 7, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • diane manning

      Amen cjennis~~~

      July 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • yeasayer

      Ultimately, it's up to families to protect their children, and no one in this family was doing that. The earth is overcrowded as it is with children who are valued. If the Anthonys want to cover up what happened, let them. They are the only ones with DNA invested in this child. The loss is theirs alone.

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

      The sickness in society does not come from Obama. And yes, you DON'T know about making bills. If you did, you'd understand that your outrage doesn't make your opinions about the law correct.
      IF a liberal tried to make it easier to convict with less evidence, conservatives would go crazy about them "taking away your rights." And people would bring up the fact that others have been wrongly convicted.
      There is no way to make it perfect.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Kay

    A pox on the jury; I hope Karma starts kicking all of them in the butt. Did you see that weasel of an alternate juror? OMG. What a loser!

    July 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • @ KAY

      YOU ARE A H OL E. AND PROBABLY A NASTY ONE TOO.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • kce

      I've heard other similar arguments. I've even read posts calling the jury stupid, and demands of retribution be brought on them. I have a question: What the HELL is the point of having a fair trial by a jury of your peers if everytime the jury comes up with a verdict the public doesn't like, then they can shame them, threaten violence or mete out vigilante justice of their own? What the hell is the point then? Why not just bribe the jury? Or threaten them before hand in order to guarantee the verdict you so desperately want?

      I still have serious doubts on her innocence as does any thinking person here, but we are the United States of America, and American citizens, and NOT a bunch of ignorant, rioting F#$k sticks of some third world toilet trash country. Let's act like it.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lyle Kauman

      That's right. ATTACK your fellow citizens, the jury of peers, the people who were randomly selected to fulfill a very difficult civic duty, and at low pay at that. Attack them. Show everyone that jury duty is to be shunned, has no rewards, and that the public doesn't give a -- about the difficulties that every jury member faces.

      No .... WAIT! Why not consider the fullness of what it means to be a jury member in our country, then give the respect that is deserved. Or perhaps you can give your local jury comissioner a call to volunteer your availability so that you'd have opportunity to build genuine compassion for those who serve our country. And while you're at it, why don't you start the process by apologizing for your brash and inconsiderate words?

      July 7, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
  15. J

    So you say she is innocent. Do you also think it was ok for her to pretend her child was still around. Go party as if nothing has happened to her child. Please help me understand how she can be ok with not doing anything to find her daughter. How she is ok not knowing what happen to her child. The only explanation that I can imagine is that she already knows what happens.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • SGT J

      The prosecution failed to prove its case, simple as that. The jurors followed the law and did the right thing.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • realist88

      They certainly didn't follow the laws of common sense.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • fastrack

      Hey, J. The jury did NOT find Baby Killer INNOCENT. They found her NOT GUILTY. There's a big difference. I don't like the verdict any better than you did, but I'm not going to sit in judgement on the jury; I think they did their jobs well. She only THINKS she's free.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Acaraho

      To fastrack: In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      I say the prosecution had horsey blinders on and pushed the wrong charges. Murder one could not be proven. They and they alone let her get away with a crime. Not the jury. Not the defense. If they would have not been so narrow minded and overreaching they would have won. The jury made the right choice for all of us despite what you think of the defendant. How would you feel with a case against you for the wrong thing and with no linking evidence. I would hope that jury would do the same for me.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeff S

      J and fastrack. Yes you are innocent when you enter a court room in America. The trial determines if you remain innocent aka not guilty, or if you are found to be guilty. Since the court didn't find this woman guilty than she remains innocent. That how the judicial system works. To your second point J, no you shouldn't pretend the child is still alive. She is dead. That is for certain and was never up for question in the court. The only question ask of the court was about whether her mother was the one that killed her. The court found she wasn't. End of story.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      Reply to J;
      No, most of us don't think she is innocent. We just think the jury didn't understand the cause of death or thought there was an accident and those facts LEGALLY made them required to vote not guilty. That was their oath.
      i don't think she's innocent, and I want this to follow her until we get an explanation.

      July 7, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lyle Kauman

      @ SGT J: "The prosecution failed to prove its case, simple as that. The jurors followed the law and did the right thing."
      True. The Law is a matter of jurisprudence that, while varied in its administration, tends to follow universal precepts of logic and deduction, whereas (@ realist88, i.e., "They certainly didn't follow the laws of common sense.") the idea of "common sense" is little more than a sociological-anthropological construct that varies from place to place according to our vast diversity of social norms.

      July 7, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.