The reasonable doubt is considered as a standard of proof that must be met or exceeded to convict the suspect in a criminal proceeding. The main purpose of this standard that is in the constitution of the United States is to protect citizens against baseless convictions or prosecutions. In the case murder trial, it was the work of the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was the child-killer(Lohr. 2013).
Prima facie refers to the first impression that is acknowledged as correct until it is proven otherwise.In this case, the evidence tabled before court-martial is adequate to verify the case unless there is an extensiveconflictingproof that is accessible at trial. In this case, the fact that Casey failed to report or to notify the authority about the missing of her child for 31 days made her prima facie guilty of murder. Further, her repugnant behavior including partying when a daughter is missing, doubtful search in her computer, and child neglect contributed to her conviction.
This is referred to a set of statements that guides prosecutors when they are conducting their prosecutions. Its main aim is to offer the public a clear understanding of the method the prosecutor takes and the consideration they take in handling prosecutions. The applicable code in the case was start by seeking for truth that is always engraved in the evidence.
Simpson Trial and its Role in the Prosecution of Crimes in U.S.
In the Simpson case, the prosecution failed to prove that O.J Simpson was guilty. This is after one year of trial that was highly publicized. The case is of significant importance because it he was a black man at a time when racial discrimination played a big role in the criminal justice system. However, he was a renowned figure and he had the resources that were necessary for him to win the case. He was able to defeat a system that had for many years acted unfairly and detained numerous Americans. Thus, the O.J. system transformed both the social, legal, and racial history in America. It is for that reason that Simpson trial remains vital to the prosecution of criminalities in the United States.
- The attorney that was more persuasive in this case was Jose Baez
- The attorney that offered the jury necessary facts to consider was Jennifer Ford
Establishing and Challenging a Prima Facie Case for Murder
- Simon Birch was a prosecution witness that helped to establish a prima facie in this case. He remains the strongest witness as he remained unmoved or unchallenged during the cross examination. This witness was a waste management expert who had 30 years’ experience in the towing profession and additional two years in waste management. In his experience, she had numerous exposures to dead bodies. Birch was the first to establish a foul smell emanating from Anthony’s car.
- The person who challenged the evidence is Laura Buchanan who volunteered to search for Caylee. She had searched the exact same place that the body of the deceased child was without success. Also, she did not notice anything unusual such as a foul smell around that place.
The testimony by Parker would have helped the prosecution establish a prima facie case of murder against Casey. Parker was a fiancé of Lee, a brother to Casey. According to (Lohr, 2013), she explained how she went with her fiancé to almost all bars in Orlando to search for Casey after she missed for a couple of days. This is an indication that Casey was not mourning the death or disappearance of her daughter and instead she was clubbing and having fun. Thus, it is an indication that she might have killed her daughter.
Jose Boaz had numerous allegations that tried to implicate Casey’s father as responsible for the murder of Caylee. First, George had buried his family pets wrapped in blankets that were covered in a plastic bag that had a tape before he buried them in the backyard. Second, he brought up an affair between George and Holloway who was a search volunteer(Wesh 2 News. 2011). Third, he presented a suicide note from an attempt to commit suicide. The statement pointed insinuated George as an individual with a high probability of committing murder. In his closing statement talked about lies that were evidently seen in George Anthony’s family. Casey is seen as a recipe of such lie as she had been raised in that family.
In the closing defense, attorney Cheney Mason was the last to make his closing remarks. His closing statement was more persuasive than that of Jose Boaz.Mason places the burden of proof to the state. Mason told the jurors that it requires them to prove Casey innocent. Also, he defended Casey decision not to testify as her right and not an insinuation of guilt.
The media and the society are usually biased in high-profile cases such as the Casey Anthony/Caylee Anthony trial. The society is always swayed by emotions forgetting that someone cannot be sentenced until they have their day in court. In this case, the defense felt that the media and public have already concluded that Casey had killed her daughter. The commentary made by legal experts in our media stations and in print and the crowd that turn up in such a case can influence the results of a case.
- This case is divisive in the United States as it sets precedence to murder cases that will be brought in American courts. The future lawyers will use this and the O.J. Simpson as a case study when confronted with such issues. The case is seen as having ruined the trust that the Americans have in their justice system. Casey is seen as having practiced a retroactive abortion and the judges have granted her the right to choose. Nonetheless, the public feels that no one deserves to kill her kid or any other person on the account of any right in making a decision.
The case is of significance in the study of criminal prosecution and criminal justice.First, the case equips scholars with the ability to listen to facts from both the witness and the lawyers and to make informed choices that are free from emotional influence. Secondly, as a prosecutor, it is necessary to establish the truth before charging a case. In this case, the prosecutor charged the defendant with a first degree murder for not reporting to the authorities about the missing kid. This was untrue as Caylee mother had reported the case.
Also, the spirit of the constitution is more on protecting those who are innocent. It is better to let a guilty person walk free if there is no evidence to prosecute him rather than convicting him.This is applicable in cases that carry a capital punishment.
Lastly, the case attracted media and societal outrage(Wesh 2 News. 2011). There were also self-appointed experts who were offering opinion about the case and have never tried a murder case. This people turned the case into entertainment and not giving it a serious analysis. This should not influence the judgment of a jury while making a judgment.
The case has changed my thinking about criminal cases. I thought that such a case would result to a capital offence. However, it requires a burden of proof that cannot be challenged before someone is sentenced or convicted.
Order Unique Answer Now