Why I'm Not Outraged at the Casey Anthony Verdict

When you're an attorney, especially if you do criminal law, people are always asking you: "what do you think of the [insert name of latest high profile defendant here] trial?" It's been especially intense for some reason during this latest blockbuster trial, that of Casey Anthony, who was charged with killing her daughter Caylee. The question is often followed up with "you can't possibly think she's innocent, can you?"


 My answer, as always, is: I have no idea. I haven't heard any of the evidence.  I've seen trials, then seen coverage of those same trials.   And I know for sure that, if your only knowledge of the case is what you've seen on TV or read in the paper, you haven't heard all the evidence. It's impossible. Trials go on for days, sometimes weeks, and what you see in the mass media is a thirty second, at most, glimpse of what went on. Unfortunately, those tidbits you're fed are  picked by someone who's looking, not for the most important facts, but for the most dramatic or sensational ones. 


The media are not interested in justice; they're interested in eyeballs on the page or screen. For that reason, frankly, they often do  a piss-poor job of  covering criminal trials. Reporters  make up their minds early on, construct a narrative around their preconceptions, and the decision on what to tell you is invariably bent around that narrative. And they've all apparently decided that "guilty! guilty!  guilty!" is the narrative most likely to sell, unless a case falls so completely to pieces and starts to stink so bad  they can't ignore the stench  any longer. 


 I'm not just talking about Nancy Grace, who's only the most egregious example. Court coverage in general is abysmal, and I haven't seen any yet that even bothers to give lip service to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." 


 This is why I never follow the latest "trial of the century." I know I'm not getting all the information I need to make a decision. I'm getting only those parts of the story that some reporter thinks will get tongues wagging around the water cooler the next day so you'll come back that evening and watch some more.  


The only people who heard all the facts in that case are the people in that courtroom. What they found important may have been light-years removed from what some reporter or paid "legal expert" on the news found important  enough to tell you. So none of us are in a position to be screaming that the jurors were stupid or that justice was not done. That's why I'm not outraged that Casey Anthony was acquitted, because I can't decide on whether she killed her daughter or not based on what's on TV.