Not Guilty/Acquittal
 

Collie, this is kinda long and for that I apologize. (I tried to post a link but couldn't figure out how to do it.) You are right that by definition, acquittal and not guilty are the same. This article says more what I was trying to say about the difference though. This was written by a Ft. Worth lawyer.

Not Guilty vs. Innocent


When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if your innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

In a criminal case you are either "guilty" or "not guilty". When the jury returns with it's verdict it will be one or the other. This is not much ado about nothing. My goal in a criminal trial is to get the jury to say at the end "not guilty" not "we find you innocent". The reason of course is that the law places the burden of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the government. You don't have to prove your innocence. (like you could even do that). The person accused has no burden of proof at all. In fact the trial starts with one fact absolutely established, that the defendant is presumed "not guilty". The government must prove guilt to the highest standard the law allows and if they don't the jury has no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty".

A criminal trial is not about what you as the defendant can prove. It is about what the government can prove. It has been my experience that I have won many more trials when I put on no witnesses or evidence. Instead I shot holes in the government's case and pointed out how weak or how little evidence they produced. Often by putting on witnesses and evidence for the defense, the jury gets confused that the trial is not a battle of who has the most or best evidence. They think, "well we believed that the state's evidence was better or they had more evidence than the defense". We will lose that battle every time. When no evidence is produced by the accused, the law about who bears the burden of proof is underlined for the jury. The court will tell the jury that the law does not impose any burden on the defendant to produce any testimony or evidence. The judge instructs the jury that they must accept that as the law before they begin their deliberations.

So why is this distinction not well known? If you listen to the news media's coverage of a trial, you will hear them talk of innocence. They will say a jury found someone "innocent" in court today. No they did not! They found someone "not guilty". If you are concerned about innocence, then see a priest, rabbi, or clergyman. If you have been charged by the government with a crime and they seek to take away your liberty, you should be concerned about being found "Not Guilty" and see a criminal defense lawyer!

What happened to the roll of duck tape?
 

A piece here (near the skull)and a piece there (gas can and taping up poster for missing Caylee)!....Hmmmm!

I imagine that there were a lot of posters put up and I guess one could go through a roll of duct tape pretty quickly that way.

Let's just hope that THIS time the "glove will fit" someone.

dillywho, thanks for the explanation. Seems like semantics to me - I think if you polled lawyers who perform opening statements (perform being the operative word), I think that it would be nearly unanimous that they tell the jury their client is "innocent" more than they use the term "not guilty". I agree with the analysis, that courts don't find people innocent. But my question related to "acquittal", which is a term of art as well, and from my reading I believe it is equivalent to not guilty, and means that the government may not try the defendant again for the same offense.

dillywho...I am more familar with civil cases where the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff and in thoses cases the casual link relationship of harm to damages. I very much appreciate the aforementioned explanation because it supports the time and money the State had to go through to try this case. A baby is dead. the las person to be with that baby was her mother. Her mother ignorded her baby's absence for 31 days. When confronted she lied and made up stories about people and places. The baby was found down the block from he mother's home with various materials ,etc that have a strong potential as coming from the mother's home. Experts have testified to the smell and other evidence of decomposition. As to motive we recently heard that Casey's mother was trying to gain custody of her grand daughter and Casey's response to her brother Lee was that that "B" won't get my baby. Casey's behavior of lying, stealing , etc may indicate some mental issues...not sure at this point. However, it is clear she was spoiled, use to having her way and very very unresponsible.

It pains me to even think that a mother could harm he baby but this is very strong circumstantial evidence. So I applaud the State for their efforts because their burden of proof is so great that it will take the gargantuan effort they are making to get a guilty verdict on any of the possible counts.

Someone mentioned a comparison to the OJ case. I don't beleieve they are anyway alike except I pray that when the jury comes in they say guilty or innocent and not " not guilty" because I hate to think that this young mother got away with murder.

Hi Collie,
I used to cover criminal court for a newspaper. I don't know whether attorneys ever say it, but I have never heard a defense attorney describe his client as "innocent" rather than "not guilty". On the other hand, yes a "not guilty" verdict is an acquittal. There is no such thing in U. S. courts as as a verdict of "innocent".

Hi PTurner, I have heard defense attorneys claim their clients are innocent. Perhaps its like the trash/garbage controversey overtaking this trial Haaa

Yes...The trash/garbage controversy and Casey laughed. She laughed.

I was shocked. They were talking about the larvae of the insects that fed on her daughters decomposing body.

I don't understand how a human could be like that.

Most of day on FBI agent on hair
 

Thought FBI testimony was suppressed by Judge BUT state continued to question him on this subject....Very confusing....Guess state will finish Tues. or Wed....THEN defense will TRY to explain OPENING!....Not sure state has a Murder One case but she should be in jail for awhile!

Proof
 

F.Lee Bailey said in his book,"It is not important that you are innocent. It is important that you can prove it to 12 jurors."
In this case no one can identify how she died, when she died and where she died. There has been no proof of these reqirements and therefore it is becoming like the old "hanging" in the west when these questions were not important, just the "feelings" and "emotions". Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt".
It has become a great shell game by the State as they have no proof to the above 3 requirements and it is a real danger when people ignore them and replace them with emotion and feelings.
She may be the biggest liar that ever walked on the earth, the most selfish
mother ever to live, a true sociopath, etc. But it is still necessary to prove she was responsible in some way for the child's death and that has not been done. Is it possible that it would be terrible for her to go free? Maybe..But if in the process the our freedoms and justice are protected then let her walk.
Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.

Good Post
 

Your post seems well thought out and right on. The State has proved (proven?) nothing... lots of theories, yes, but not proof. As you said, feeling and emotions are not proof, either. Even some of the news "analysts" who are or have been judges themselves have said much the same thing. Where's the proof? Caylee could well have drowned and Casey panicked, Casey could have used chloroform, or tape, or whatever...she is the only one who really knows what happened.

Does it look bad for her? Absolutely, but then only the prosecution has had a turn. The one expert testifying today seemed one of the most credible because he said that everything he presented is not absolute.

Remember when I said that she could have placed the tape on her child to support her original story of kidnapping? At the time she came up with that story, she first told it to her mother and it grew from there. She couldn't have given her attorneys a different story at that point because she didn't even have attorneys. She had no need for them.

Why didn't the State verify if and when George was at work on the 16th? They did it for the computer searches. Why didn't Cindy take Casey's calls that afternoon? She testified that the number of calls in a row was unusual. If so, why did she not think there might be a problem? Did she answer them or just see or know that it was Casey calling and choose to ignore them? The State contends that cell phone records show that Casey was still home or near there most of the afternoon around the time she was making those calls.

If the stories are true about her mother not "allowing" her to put Caylee up for adoption, how is that? She was of age and her mother couldn't have done a thing about it if she had. With the open adoptions now, the grandparents could still have been a part of her life. All the tension between Casey and her family couldn't have been good for Caylee. Couldn't the rest of the family see that? Maybe Cindy thought that by forcing Casey to keep Caylee, she would see the light and change. That's as effective as having a child either one of a couple doesn't really want just to hold a marriage together.

Too, too many questions still and not nearly enough answers. We just need to let the system work all the way through. That hasn't happened, yet.

Most men do not think Casey Anthony will be found guilty and most women think she will...I read that somewhere recently.

It is again, the difference in how male and female absorb information and make judgements every day. Men seek concrete evidence and material information and women study the demeanor, personality, actions, body language and facial expressions and motive of people. Each is better than the other in this form of information gathering, and each thinks the others way is not as good.

Proof
 

Graciegirl, you make my point when you say:"women study the demeanor, personality, actions, body language and facial expressions and motive of people".
No one should ever be convicted of a crime, regardless of the seriousness
of the crime on demeanor, personality, body language or facial attributes.
That is not in compliance with the law of the land which is based on proof.
These are not proof but feelings. It does not say in the Constitution that if you feel someone is guilty you should convict them.
I understand your points but feel they seriously divert attention from the
need for absolute proof. :wave:

You are right of course...

I am happy to know that and to feel that.

But she IS guilty.:angel: