Casey Anthony, Media Frenzy, and the Death Penalty

Casey Anthony with her attorneys before the jury presented a verdict in her murder trial. (Photo by Red Huber-Pool/Getty Images)

After years of being prosecuted by Nancy Grace, and weeks of being prosecuted in a real courtroom, Casey Anthony has been acquitted by a jury of murder charges that could have left her facing execution.  Her acquittal of murder comes after a three-year media frenzy during which her guilt was more or less presumed.  Some followers of the trial, saturated by this media coverage, were shocked by the verdict.  Defense attorneys blasted the media circus (and the lawyers who participated in it).

Attorney Cheney Mason said:

“I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this. I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases they don’t know a damn thing about.”

Jose Baez added that:

“We have the greatest Constitution in the world, and if the media and other members of the public do not respect it, it will become meaningless.”

He was referring to core constitutional concepts like “trial by jury” and “innocent until proven guilty.”

Nancy Grace was not happy.  After managing to get in her “tot mom” catch-phrase, she expressed contempt for the jury’s decision, telling CNN:  “There is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth.”

Death penalty cases are often high-profile, high-pressure affairs (in this case, a precious two-year old girl lost her life).  The temptation to jettison basic constitutional values (or media ethics) is great.  It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy.  Jose Baez suggested as much when he asserted that this case was a “perfect example” of why we should not have the death penalty.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

25 thoughts on “Casey Anthony, Media Frenzy, and the Death Penalty

  1. It is the judge, not the jury nor the media, who would decide whether she received the maximum sentencing of the death penalty had she been found guilty. To say, "It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy," implies the opposite.
    Can you apply the guidelines of unbiased and un-frenzied reporting you suggest here to your organization? To this article??

  2. I'm sincerely surprised. Not because I think she did it (I'm not invested enough to feel one way or the other), but because so many people instantly assumed she did it, and the case was so famous, I didn't think she had a chance at a fair trial.

    I'm also a little disturbed by all the talk of the justice system not doing its job. On the contrary, this is exactly what it was setup to do. The country operates on an assumption of innocence unless/until sufficient evidence can be provided to prove otherwise. Someone lying and acting differently to what is expected (no matter how different that may be) is not proof of a crime, and should never be considered proof in a crime as serious as murder. The fact of the matter is that the prosecution dropped the ball and the state never really had a case against her in the first place. Despite how anyone may personally feel about her innocence, I'd say this is the greatest triumph of the justice system as a whole in a long time.

    I'm sure if you were being falsely accused of murder and the state attempted to try you on such flimsy evidence, you'd pray others rejected it as inconclusive. OK, maybe you'd never act the way she did, but the point still stands. Circumstantial evidence is flimsy evidence, and no matter if it's you or someone else, it should be treated the same way.

  3. Having not bought into the 'media frenzy' but having studied the case I do believe that Casey Anthony is guilty. However, not enough to find her guilty had I been on the jury. …."Presumed innocent until proven guilty"…the prosecution was not able to conclusively provide enough evidence (and "conclusive" evidence is the key word) to convince me 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she was responsible. It really was circumstantial evidence. A trial is not about 'is a person guilty or are they not.' It is about the prosecution being able to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that that person did it. Do I believe she is guilty?….yes. Did the prosecution manage to prove it?….No. That is why it is much harder being on the side of the prosecution as opposed to the defense. The defense only has to bring into play that 'reasonable doubt.' When we are talking about the death penalty then the jury really needs to be absolutely certain that there is no reasonable doubt. If there is, then they are instructed that they must find the defendant not guilty. That is how our justice system works, like it or not. When you look at the justice system in many other countries in the world, it's not that bad. Perhaps if the death penalty were abolished, it would have been easier for the jury to find Casey Anthony guilty. But nobody wants to be a part of sending another person potentially to their death if they have not been convinced beyond that reasonable doubt. The prosecution was not able to do that.

  4. It is the judge, not the jury nor the media, who would decide whether she received the maximum sentencing of the death penalty had she been found guilty. To say, “It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy,” implies the opposite.
    Can you apply the guidelines of unbiased and un-frenzied reporting you suggest here to your organization? To this article??

  5. I’m sincerely surprised. Not because I think she did it (I’m not invested enough to feel one way or the other), but because so many people instantly assumed she did it, and the case was so famous, I didn’t think she had a chance at a fair trial.

    I’m also a little disturbed by all the talk of the justice system not doing its job. On the contrary, this is exactly what it was setup to do. The country operates on an assumption of innocence unless/until sufficient evidence can be provided to prove otherwise. Someone lying and acting differently to what is expected (no matter how different that may be) is not proof of a crime, and should never be considered proof in a crime as serious as murder. The fact of the matter is that the prosecution dropped the ball and the state never really had a case against her in the first place. Despite how anyone may personally feel about her innocence, I’d say this is the greatest triumph of the justice system as a whole in a long time.

    I’m sure if you were being falsely accused of murder and the state attempted to try you on such flimsy evidence, you’d pray others rejected it as inconclusive. OK, maybe you’d never act the way she did, but the point still stands. Circumstantial evidence is flimsy evidence, and no matter if it’s you or someone else, it should be treated the same way.

  6. Actually, I hadn't heard about this trial at all until just a month or two ago. Does Florida still have the death penalty?

  7. Having not bought into the ‘media frenzy’ but having studied the case I do believe that Casey Anthony is guilty. However, not enough to find her guilty had I been on the jury. ….”Presumed innocent until proven guilty”…the prosecution was not able to conclusively provide enough evidence (and “conclusive” evidence is the key word) to convince me ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that she was responsible. It really was circumstantial evidence. A trial is not about ‘is a person guilty or are they not.’ It is about the prosecution being able to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that that person did it. Do I believe she is guilty?….yes. Did the prosecution manage to prove it?….No. That is why it is much harder being on the side of the prosecution as opposed to the defense. The defense only has to bring into play that ‘reasonable doubt.’ When we are talking about the death penalty then the jury really needs to be absolutely certain that there is no reasonable doubt. If there is, then they are instructed that they must find the defendant not guilty. That is how our justice system works, like it or not. When you look at the justice system in many other countries in the world, it’s not that bad. Perhaps if the death penalty were abolished, it would have been easier for the jury to find Casey Anthony guilty. But nobody wants to be a part of sending another person potentially to their death if they have not been convinced beyond that reasonable doubt. The prosecution was not able to do that.

  8. Actually, I hadn’t heard about this trial at all until just a month or two ago. Does Florida still have the death penalty?

  9. oh yeah, Joe, they do……in a nutshell, Florida is second only to Texas in utilizing it, too. (lived there for 4 years……….I know the state's reputation quite well.,)
    Also, for anyone bemoaning the verdict, let's not blame the jury – first, the prosecution probably did not prove well enough she did do it – certainly not well enough to put this woman to death, regardless of how sleazy and slimy she may be. Also, I choose not to get upset, as it would appear the judge would agree – there is such a thing as the judge having the right to vacate the jury's decision, and he did not do it.
    I sat on a criminal case a few months ago – granted, it was a drug case, but bottom line – we found the defendant not guilty – as suspect as the situation was, the prosecuter did not give us anything to be able to peg on the woman. As a matter of fact, he did a pretty shabby job as far as I was concerned, so…….if you want to see the sleaze go down, the DA MUST do their job, and do it right. Otherwise, they are waisting everybody's time, money, etc – not to mention the human factor here.

  10. @frida romal: If a verdict of guilty was reached by the jury on the charge of First Degree Pre-meditated Murder then there would be a penalty phase. At the penalty phase evidence of aggravation would be presented by the State of Florida and evidence of mitigation would be presented to the jury. The jury would then deliberate again and vote for either death or life in prison. A unanimous verdict is not required, only a preponderence. Meaning as long as 7 of the 12 voted for death she would have been put to death.
    The judge would have the ability to overide a sentence of death if death was chosen but not the other way around. However, in Florida this is extremely rare that a judge would overturn the jury's verdict of death. So no, the judge is not the one who makes the ultimate decision in a capital case.

  11. oh yeah, Joe, they do……in a nutshell, Florida is second only to Texas in utilizing it, too. (lived there for 4 years……….I know the state’s reputation quite well.,)
    Also, for anyone bemoaning the verdict, let’s not blame the jury – first, the prosecution probably did not prove well enough she did do it – certainly not well enough to put this woman to death, regardless of how sleazy and slimy she may be. Also, I choose not to get upset, as it would appear the judge would agree – there is such a thing as the judge having the right to vacate the jury’s decision, and he did not do it.
    I sat on a criminal case a few months ago – granted, it was a drug case, but bottom line – we found the defendant not guilty – as suspect as the situation was, the prosecuter did not give us anything to be able to peg on the woman. As a matter of fact, he did a pretty shabby job as far as I was concerned, so…….if you want to see the sleaze go down, the DA MUST do their job, and do it right. Otherwise, they are waisting everybody’s time, money, etc – not to mention the human factor here.

  12. @frida romal: If a verdict of guilty was reached by the jury on the charge of First Degree Pre-meditated Murder then there would be a penalty phase. At the penalty phase evidence of aggravation would be presented by the State of Florida and evidence of mitigation would be presented to the jury. The jury would then deliberate again and vote for either death or life in prison. A unanimous verdict is not required, only a preponderence. Meaning as long as 7 of the 12 voted for death she would have been put to death.
    The judge would have the ability to overide a sentence of death if death was chosen but not the other way around. However, in Florida this is extremely rare that a judge would overturn the jury’s verdict of death. So no, the judge is not the one who makes the ultimate decision in a capital case.

  13. she need death. how u kill a child n be all smiles partying n clubbing like ur child aint dead. she gonna get whats coming to her n so will the dumb judge n jurors who got her off. they r some serious assholes. i say duck tape her n a hot water tank n let her burn to hell. its a darn shame.

  14. she need death. how u kill a child n be all smiles partying n clubbing like ur child aint dead. she gonna get whats coming to her n so will the dumb judge n jurors who got her off. they r some serious assholes. i say duck tape her n a hot water tank n let her burn to hell. its a darn shame.

  15. Greetings to all of you, whatever your views !

    Greetings to Ms Anthony .. she's coming out today !!

    i wish her peace… that she be left in peace to make peace with herself.

    i don't agree with the prosecution at all … that she should be "ignored" by all.

    In fact, it's the prosecution which should itself be …. not ignored, but prosecuted….. for doing what it has done.

    i hear a lot of "experts" on CNN saying how the system has "worked".

    They don't utter a squeak about how this great system of theirs ( "Only in America !" they brag ) kept Ms Anthony in prison for THREE YEARS….. even while she was supposed to have been "presumed innocent" pending trial & judgment.

    This is what American prosecutors do … they keep you in prison & terrorize you in hopes you'll crack & make a PLEA BARGAIN.

    NINETY PER CENT of convictions are got this way.

    When … IF …it finally comes to PROVING its case, the prosecution COLLAPSES.

    As it did with Ms Anthony.

    So they convict her for lying .. to save their own "face" ( as if they had any left !! ).

    CNN's Piers Morgan, that moral coward & Establishment lackey, looks "appalled" that Ms Anthony's going to "walk free" today.

    What's really appalling is the state of collusion between the media & the real criminals … the US criminal "just – us" system.

    This system which today has criminalized one out of every THREE Amrericans.

    Which has put OVER TWO MILLION Americans in prison .

    The highest number of incarcerations of any country on earth.

    Americans AWAKE against your real, COMMON enemy.

    The enemy that's not a single, weak individual, but this system that is devouring you ALL.

  16. Greetings to all of you, whatever your views !

    Greetings to Ms Anthony .. she’s coming out today !!

    i wish her peace… that she be left in peace to make peace with herself.

    i don’t agree with the prosecution at all … that she should be “ignored” by all.

    In fact, it’s the prosecution which should itself be …. not ignored, but prosecuted….. for doing what it has done.

    i hear a lot of “experts” on CNN saying how the system has “worked”.

    They don’t utter a squeak about how this great system of theirs ( “Only in America !” they brag ) kept Ms Anthony in prison for THREE YEARS….. even while she was supposed to have been “presumed innocent” pending trial & judgment.

    This is what American prosecutors do … they keep you in prison & terrorize you in hopes you’ll crack & make a PLEA BARGAIN.

    NINETY PER CENT of convictions are got this way.

    When … IF …it finally comes to PROVING its case, the prosecution COLLAPSES.

    As it did with Ms Anthony.

    So they convict her for lying .. to save their own “face” ( as if they had any left !! ).

    CNN’s Piers Morgan, that moral coward & Establishment lackey, looks “appalled” that Ms Anthony’s going to “walk free” today.

    What’s really appalling is the state of collusion between the media & the real criminals … the US criminal “just – us” system.

    This system which today has criminalized one out of every THREE Amrericans.

    Which has put OVER TWO MILLION Americans in prison .

    The highest number of incarcerations of any country on earth.

    Americans AWAKE against your real, COMMON enemy.

    The enemy that’s not a single, weak individual, but this system that is devouring you ALL.

  17. a.Savage-
    In no way, shape or form is Ms. Anthony a victim. She actually ended up being the beneficiary of the greatest justice system in the world. Considering all the circumstances / circumstantial evidence – there is little doubt in any reasonable person's mind who killed Cayleigh. HOWEVER, it is that little doubt that enables Ms. Anthony to walk.
    OJ Simpson spent years in jail before being aqcuitted of murdering his ex-wife and the friend. He a victim as well?
    The three years Ms. Anthony spent in Jail actually works out – as she was appropiately convicted of lying to law enforcement and leading them down many fruitless paths – FRANTICALLY looking for a "missing" two year old girl. The appropriate sentence for those crimes she was convicted of – means that Ms. Anthony will not have spent a day longer in prison than she should have.

    I'm not sure the point of A.I.'s blog. They point to a case that worked (to great lenghts) in favor of an accused. The media didn't matter in this case.
    Mr. Evans – your statement "It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy". Bottom line – WE CAN'T. It wasn't up to the media, it wasn't up to an angry mob, it wasn't up to the public opinion. It was up to a sequestered jury and an extra-ordinary fair trial and justice system.
    WAY WAY OFF Mr. Evans.

  18. a.Savage-
    In no way, shape or form is Ms. Anthony a victim. She actually ended up being the beneficiary of the greatest justice system in the world. Considering all the circumstances / circumstantial evidence – there is little doubt in any reasonable person’s mind who killed Cayleigh. HOWEVER, it is that little doubt that enables Ms. Anthony to walk.
    OJ Simpson spent years in jail before being aqcuitted of murdering his ex-wife and the friend. He a victim as well?
    The three years Ms. Anthony spent in Jail actually works out – as she was appropiately convicted of lying to law enforcement and leading them down many fruitless paths – FRANTICALLY looking for a “missing” two year old girl. The appropriate sentence for those crimes she was convicted of – means that Ms. Anthony will not have spent a day longer in prison than she should have.

    I’m not sure the point of A.I.’s blog. They point to a case that worked (to great lenghts) in favor of an accused. The media didn’t matter in this case.
    Mr. Evans – your statement “It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy”. Bottom line – WE CAN’T. It wasn’t up to the media, it wasn’t up to an angry mob, it wasn’t up to the public opinion. It was up to a sequestered jury and an extra-ordinary fair trial and justice system.
    WAY WAY OFF Mr. Evans.

  19. Attorney Cheney Mason used to be one of the lawyers who participated in the media circus he is blasting. How quickly we forget.

  20. Attorney Cheney Mason used to be one of the lawyers who participated in the media circus he is blasting. How quickly we forget.

  21. The fact of the matter is that the prosecution dropped the ball and the state never really had a case against her in the first place. Despite how anyone may personally feel about her innocence overide a sentence of death if death was chosen but not the other way around.

  22. she need death. how u kill a child n be all smiles partying n clubbing like ur child aint dead. she gonna get whats coming to her n so will the dumb judge n jurors who got her off. they r some serious assholes.Thanks for sharing the informative post.

  23. I really appreciate your effort in coming up with such a blog that mentions about our human rights. Anyway I am totally disturbed by all the talk of the justice system not doing its job. I will continue looking over your blog for more such updates that reveal social security.
    go to this site

Comments are closed.