Latest Headlines
- ‘Major’ Fire Reported At Ascend, Fire Now Out
- Century’s Small Town Christmas Parade Turns Out Small With Four Entries, No Santa
- Sunny, Cool Sunday
- Acres Of Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Run-a-muck Ranch In Bratt
- Home for the Paw-lidays Free Dog, Cat Adoptions At Escambia Shelter
- FDOT Completes $7.5 Million Highway 90 Resurfacing Project
- Going Shopping? A Watchful ECSO Eye Has Your Back
- Tate Aggies Soccer And Basketball Earn Friday Night Wins
- No Serious Injuries In Bratt Rollover Crash
- Escambia County’s First Wawa Store Now Open; Four More Planned
Casey Anthony Fallout: Details On Juror Silence Bill
July 15, 2011
More details emerged Thursday about a proposed bill to prevent jurors from making money off the cases they hear. The bill is prompted by the high-profile Casey Anthony murder trial.
Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, said he wants to create a “cooling off” period of 270 days after a juror’s dismissal. During that period, members of jury cannot profit from disclosing information about their experience.
The bill would make violations a felony punishable by fines of up to $10,000. Another bill Randolph wants to suggest involves jury privacy. He wants to keep the names of jurors private, unless the juror wants to come forward.
“The purpose of this legislation is to preserve the integrity of the jury process,” Randolph said in a statement. “It balances the First Amendment freedom of speech with the sixth amendment guarantee to a fair trial.”
Comments
23 Responses to “Casey Anthony Fallout: Details On Juror Silence Bill”
REGARDING:
“Casey goes free without so much as a slap on the wrist”
If it’s any consolation, at least she spent three years in jail awaiting trial. That put a real crimp in her partying and may have saved three more children from being born and abused in the interim.
David trying to comfort the disappointed
This bill protects jurors like these-who were obviously way over their heads-from the public outcry. Nobody should profit from this child’s death. But on the other hand, the attitude that people should have blind faith in the jury system, not criticize jurors and treat them as if they could do no wrong is just plain dangerous! So it’s nice that they want a law to protect the future jurors from the public – but who is working to protect the future Caylees from jurors like these? This jury FAILED. The system FAILED. Somebody has to look at this travesty, tell the truth about it and try to figure out what needs to be corrected so it doesn’t continue to happen. It was Casey’s responsibility to love and protect this child. Caylee is dead. Casey goes free without so much as a slap on the wrist for ANY responsibility in her daughter’s death and /or leaving her to rot in a swamp. There was absolutely no justice done in this case. None.
REGARDING:
“The case was a slam dunk. The partying, keeping the baby away from the grandparents, lying to detectives, living with the boyfriend all of a sudden, the tattoo, everything found with the baby’s skeleton came from Casey’s house.”
I figure she probably DID kill her kid, but let’s be honest.
Going to a party is not proof of murder. Women frequently go to parties, often leaving their children unattended.
Keeping children away from grandparents is not proof of murder. Women frequently keep their children away from the grandparents either because they don’t trust the grandparents or because they are trying to manipulate them to do something for them.
Lying to detectives is not proof of murder. Just about every time there’s a shooting or any crime, the people around swear to the detectives that they didn’t see or hear anything. They either don’t trust the police or they DO trust the guilty to punish them for ratting them out. It doesn’t mean they committed murder themselves.
Shacking up is not proof of murder. How do you think the kid got there in the first place?
Even finding the remains of a dead body is not proof of murder or that a particular person committed that murder. Sometimes people die by accident, sometimes others actually committed the murder.
Again, I imagine she committed murder against her own child. I IMAGINE she did. I don’t know for sure. That she is a sorry excuse for a mother or that she covered up the death might be a slam dunk, but that wasn’t the charge.
David for truth
I personally feel the jurors in the Casey Anthony case did not do their job. I have said from the time they made their verdict, after a period of jaw dropping awe, that they need to be more educated. The case was a slam dunk. The partying, keeping the baby away from the grandparents, lying to detectives, living with the boyfriend all of a sudden, the tattoo, everything found with the baby’s skeleton came from Casey’s house. For all of you George Anthony haters, George did not have had motive, nor the means to dispose of the body. Remember, Casey had her car away from everyone for 31+ days. Caseys phone records showed that as soon as George went to work on June 16th, Casey returned to the Anthony home for several hours. That is the day that the defense themselves had claimed the baby died. I think Orange County had everything necessary to prosecute that girl. This was a case of total mis-justice here!!
If jurors are paid with taxpayer funds (and that is how they are usually compensated) , they should not be privileged to any special considerations. Their names and other information should be public . They knew they were going to be watched, every day of this high-profile tragedy., along with the attorneys, judge and the “defendant.” I’m sure they had the opportunity to decline jury duty, even if it was not a legitimate reason.
regarding:
” YOU DO NOT NEED A CAUSE OF DEATH FOR A MURDER CONVICTION. ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. YOU DON’T EVEN NEED A BODY”
A jury needs what a jury decides it needs. Nobody can tell the jury what to decide or you don’t have a jury; you have a rubber stamp. It’s easier to convince a jury a person is dead if you can show a dead body. It’s easier to convince them they were murdered if you can show how they died.
They don’t have to make me or you happy with their verdict. They have to decide what they can live with.
I totally agree with Common Sense Mom as well in the belief jurors should be allowed freedom of speech after their service. In fact I believe everybody should be able to profit from their actions as long as those actions weren’t based on their own criminal activities. For example, a murderer shouldn’t make money telling how he murdered someone, a rapist shouldn’t make money describing how he raped. (The worst part is that people would pay to learn how they did it for their own sick pleasure.)
Beyond that, it’s petty to try to punish a jury because you didn’t like what they decided. Every member of every jury was acceptable to the judge, prosecutor and defense.
David for perfect justice
and what we have in the mean time
Ditto Lucy Nathan. The whole trial should have been based on why Casey didn’t report her baby missing for 31 days. She probably was waiting for Caylee’s body to decompose thinking there would not be any evidence left.
Daddy Frank very well thought out responce. However you want a jury to convict because they assume she did it. Or you say she must have done it because they don’t have any other suspects or somebody has to pay for this little girls death.That is what your circumstantial evidence creates in the jury. Thinking like that is very dangerous to our court system That very thinking is why people as we speak sit on death row for crimes they did not commit. You do not need a cause of death but evidence of who caused the death would be something you do need. That puzzle you gave the jury with one pice missing, the piece missing was not the cause of death, it was the face of the killer. I think given the evidence the jury had, they returned the only decision they could. Do I think she did it?
It would only be my opinion and NOT EVIDENCE so that makes it irrelevant.
To me circumstantial evidence alone is never enough to over come reasonable dought.
@Common Sense Mom: Thanks for your comments
We can agree to disagree I guess as my intention on posting my comment on this particular site was not to get into an extensive debate. Suffice it to say that my husband is both a constitutional scholar by profession and an expert on J.S. Mill, having published extensively on his writings, so I will have to beg to differ with your perceptions as expressed regarding Constitutional freedoms of speech/the press, in regard to this subject matter. Thanx!
@Agree: Whether jurors are profiting or not is irrelevant. Restricting their rights is still unConstitutional. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” By including freedom of the press, speech for profit is specifically protected by the Constitution. Unless we believe that the founders meant to create an elite protected class (reporters), then we must conclude that jurors also enjoy the freedom to sell their views and experiences after the trial (on those very rare occasions when their jury experiences are marketable). As for the publicity seekers who might sit on a jury, not only are there already laws that allow prosecution for juror misconduct (as I stated earlier), there is an extensive screening process during jury selection. (Did either of the attorneys in this case even think to ask potential jurors if they were contemplating book deals?) To deprive jurors, as a class, of their Constitutional rights, just because a few of them might be in a position to exploit their service, sets a dangerous precedent. This bill is a bad law.
I agree with the cooling-off bill (as a matter of fact, I would not allow any profit at any time — that is NOT a violation of the First Amendment — they can speak, but just can’t profit from it). Any time that you add profit/fame to jurors’ decision making processes, the probability that you will have an unbiased decision will significantly diminish and the chances of a verdict decided not strictly on the merits of the case greatly increasing. Doesn’t take long for folks to figure out that the more controversial the verdict, the more money and interviews that will be forthcoming. This case is a prime example of that. And, that is not justice. It’s called ‘jury duty’ for a reason, and not ‘jury wheel of fortune.’
But what about Caylee? Will Caylee ever get Justice! Caylee is dead! The prosecution didn’t have to prove that. Her skeletal remains proved she was Caylee Marie Anthony. Was Casey the child’s caregiver? Did harm come to the child under Casey’s care?
I handled cases in which social workers deemed children to be at risk and had them removed from their homes by the police because:
1. there was a cat seen sleeping on a child’s bed
2. no fan in the house
3.the child has bruising on his lower back (this was “Mongolian spots,” a dark pigmented area commonly seen on kids with East Asian ancestry)
4. caseworkers also testified that parents were unfit because “the mother took that child on a city bus”
Parents losing custody for homeschooling kids and they are labeled as abusive or neglectful by a court, and by the way they are Guilty Until Proved Innocent.
I could go on for pages, but I’ll stop here.
First, we force jurors to serve for little or no pay. Then, in high profile cases, we sequester them like prisoners away from their homes and families. Now, Rep. Randolph thinks they should be deprived of their free speech rights after the trial. This law is unnecessary. Prosecutors already have the discretion to investigate and prosecute alleged juror misconduct. It doesn’t serve the interests of a free society to muzzle jurors after a case. If an occasional juror manages to profit from a sensational trial, that’s the price you pay for freedom. It doesn’t mean we should silence the jurors, any more than we should silence the reporters and media outlets who’ve been profiting continually from Caylee’s death ever since she was first reported missing.
“daddyfrank”– you summed it up perfectly. The result of this trial means there needs to be some re-vamping of how juries are educated re: reasonable doubt, the high value of circumstantial evidence (when it is plentiful), and exactly what prosecution does and does not have to prove (e.g., motive and cause of death are NOT required). Scott Peterson is bummed over how well-instructed/well-informed his jury was in comparison to those who served in the Casey Anthony fiasco. Let’s hope the powers that be learn from this debacle.
I think juror names should remain public. I agree with the bill too. The cooling off should be 7-10 days and zero profit. Those that argue for juror privacy worry me because hiding behind privacy while performing a public duty opens up corruption. This jury so obviously did not follow the rules of law by their own admissions. They admit to speculation and were clearly drinking Baez cool-aid. That should be thoroughly investigated. With journalists that’s what they do to keep honor in our system. They make things transparent so it’s difficult not to stay on up and up. We are gonna regret wanting more government hiding names.
This verdict should be thrown out. (wishful thinking I know), from just the few jurors we’ve heard from. Why is no one mentioning Brian Berling juror number 6, the chef?
I really believe we will learn of possible witness/jury tampering in near future. Considering they have said the investigation is under way already..we may have known by now if not for the names sealed . It is our right to know. Having served myself there is no reason to hide…unless your guilty of something . Just my opinions.
It’s a violation of our rights to hide the juror names. People should petition this decision, it’s only designed to protect the rights and interest of 12 child killer supporters.
The 270 day “cooling off period” is really just a protection order. And right now, those jurors need to be protected because they failed to due their duty! And they don’t need a law to prevent them from making money because I wouldn’t listen to or buy anyting that they are selling. And the same goes for Casey. Who in their right mind would give her a million dollars for more lies? I hope the American people don’t support any media coverage that earns her any money or makes her out to be a celebrity. Caylee is in a better place, way better off than with her own mother. I hope she is smiling down on the love and support from all the people that sought justice for her….. obviously that would exclude the jurors!
About jurors: During deliberations, when in doubt of guilt there should be no conviction. ERGO, when in doubt of innocence, there should be no aquital, CORRECT? In my understanding, this is what the jurors who have spoken have implied. Thoughts?
Also, if anything ”unusual” took place during deliberation (which I suspect) it was from within. Eg; a juror with dollar signs in his/her eyes who influences a ‘’shocking” verdict to derive profit from it.
Want a “Caylee’s Law?” My “Caylee’s Law” would be this: It’s a felony to threaten a juror over anything related to their service in court.
DEAR JUROR: WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT? MAYBE THIS IS WHY EVERYONE IS UPSET. YOU DO NOT NEED A CAUSE OF DEATH FOR A MURDER CONVICTION. ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. YOU DON’T EVEN NEED A BODY. The only feedback I have seen is two jurors have made statements. One said that if the death penality had not been on then they would have found her guilty. The other stated that the state could not show a cause of death. First of all either the jury did not understand what the judge said or they thought they knew all the answers. During that 11 hours the jury never once asked any questions which they could have asked the judge anything. They did not request any evidence or depositions. They knew exactly what they were doing. They needed no help from the court. So with that knowledge they pocessed they proceed to make their decission. They did not have to give a death sentence. There was only one charge that carried the death sentence. They did not need the cause of death to establish if a murder had been commited. There have been many cases where the body was never even found. ahh………..Now I know how to choose a jury for the defence. You take the people and give each a puzzle to put togather. Only with each puzzle you remove 1 piece. Let them put them togather. When complete you pick the one who can not tell you what the picture is missing only 1 piece. That one piece of evidence that they did not know(cause of death) was only 1 piece of the puzzle. They could not or did not look at the whole puzzle. Without that missing piece, they could not see the picture. DID SOME ONE PERSON MAKE THE JURY THINK THAT? OR DID THEY ALL THINK YOU HAD TO HAVE ALL THE PIECES TO TELL WHAT THE PICTURE IS?
They need to make the language explicit to keep them from going public and having the monetary payment deferred til after the 270 days is up.
I think as well there should be some kind of law on investigating Jurors. I feel this jury did not do their job. They did not ask any questions, hardly took notes, wanted to go home, left there notebooks on the seat during deliberations, did not listen or pay attention to the evidence presented to them. My personal opinion is they were in a hurry to go home, and one had a cruise to go on. They were thinking about how much money they were going to get for interviews, and they let a baby killer walk free.
Yes i agree with the bill. I am very concerned about anyone who is going to be a juror. they need to be protected from people who are ill minded. there is no need for anyone for any reason to know who they are. PERIOD.