I was a defense attorney for 5 years and tried 26 jury trials including 3 1st degree murder cases. I was next a prosecutor or 13.5 years and tried well over a hundred jury trials including more than a dozen murder and class A felony cases. I finished my career as a defense attorney for 12.5 years with dozens of jury trials including many murder cases.
The verdict was correct. They had no proof of murder and no proof Casey did it. All of the prosecution "circumstantial" evidence was consistent with an accidental death that was covered up by the disposal of the body. Casey did not act nor grieve like a parent of a deceased child. People react in many ways. If she had testified there was an accidental drowning and coverup, they may have still charged her with murder based on Child Endangerment (allowing the child to have access to a pool and drown in it, and a resulting death... good strategy by her lawyer to keep her off the stand.
It does not matter what any of us think. It only matters what the prosecution could prove. If they had found her guilty of 1st degree murder and executed her those jurors would never had had a peaceful moment the rest of the lives. That is how I finished my closing arguments and I won more than my share of trials.
Proof beyond ALL reasonable doubt.. they did not even get close. The child died, the body was discarded, and Casey did not act like "most" parents "should" have acted. Could you have sentenced Casey to death with that evidence? I could not.
JJ
|