An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise. At times, their testimony may be rebutted with a learned treatise, sometimes to the detriment of their reputations.

In Scots Law, ''Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh'' (1953) provides authority that where a witness has particular knowledge or skills in an area being examined by the court, and has been called to court in order to elaborate on that area for the benefit of the court, that witness may give evidence of his opinion on that area.

Experts in the real world

Typically, experts are relied on for opinions on severity of injury, degree of insanity, cause of failure in a machine or other device, loss of earnings, care costs, and the like. In an intellectual property case, an expert may be shown two music scores, book texts, or circuit boards and asked to ascertain their degree of similarity. In the majority of cases the expert's personal relation to the defendant is considered irrelevant.

The tribunal itself, or the judge, can in some systems call upon experts to technically evaluate a certain fact or action, in order to provide the court with a complete knowledge on the fact/action it is judging. The expertise has the legal value of an acquisition of data. The results of these experts are then compared to those by the experts of the parties.

The expert has a heavy responsibility, especially in penal trials, and perjury by an expert is a severely punished crime in most countries. The use of expert witnesses is sometimes criticized in the United States because in civil trials, they are often used by both sides to advocate differing positions, and it is left up to a jury of laymen to decide which expert witness to believe. Although experts are legally prohibited from expressing their opinion of submitted evidence until after they are hired, sometimes a party can surmise beforehand, because of reputation or prior cases, that the testimony will be favorable regardless of any basis in the submitted data; such experts are commonly disparaged as "hired guns."

Duties of experts

In England and Wales, under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the Court. A witness may be jointly instructed by both sides if the parties agree to this, especially in cases where the liability is relatively small.

Under the CPR, expert witnesses are usually instructed to produce a joint statement detailing points of agreement and disagreement to assist the court or tribunal. The meeting is held quite independently of instructing lawyers, and often assists in resolution of a case, especially if the experts review and modify their opinions. When this happens, substantial trial costs can be saved when the parties to a dispute agree to a settlement. In most systems, the trial (or the procedure) can be suspended in order to allow the experts to study the case and produce their results. More frequently, meetings of experts occur before trial.

Experts charge a professional fee which is paid by the party commissioning the report (both parties for joint instructions) although the report is addressed to the Court. The fee must not be contingent on the outcome of the case. Expert witnesses may be subpoenaed (issued with a Witness Summons), although this is normally a formality to avoid court date clashes.

History

The earliest known use of an expert witness in English law came in 1782, when a court that was hearing litigation relating to the silting-up of Wells harbour in Norfolk accepted evidence from a leading civil engineer, John Smeaton. This decision by the court to accept Smeaton's evidence is widely cited as the root of modern rules on expert evidence. However, it was still such an unusual feature in court that in 1957 in the Old Bailey, Lord Justice Patrick Devlin could describe the case of suspected serial killer Dr John Bodkin Adams thus: "It is a most curious situation, perhaps unique in these courts, that the act of murder has to be proved by expert evidence."

On the other hand, expert evidence is often the most important component of many civil and criminal cases today. Fingerprint examination, blood analysis and DNA fingerprinting are common kinds of expert evidence heard in serious criminal cases. In civil cases, the work of accident analysis, forensic engineers, and forensic accountants is usually important, the latter to assess damages and costs in long and complex cases. Intellectual property and medical negligence cases are typical examples

Electronic evidence has also entered the courtroom as critical forensic evidence. Audio and video evidence must be authenticated by both parties in any litigation by a forensic expert who is also an expert witness who assists the court in understanding details about that electronic evidence.

Voice mail recordings and closed circuit television systems produce electronic evidence often used in litigation, more so today than in the past. Video recordings of bank robberies and audio recordings of life threats are presented in court rooms by electronic expert witnesses.

Non-testifying experts

In the U.S., a party can hire experts to help him/her evaluate the case. For example, a car maker may hire an experienced mechanic to decide if its cars were built to specification. This kind of expert opinion will be protected from discovery. If the expert finds something that is against its client, the opposite party will not know it. This privilege is similar to the work product protected by the attorney/client privilege. The non-testifying expert can be present at trial or hearing to aid the attorney in asking questions of other expert witnesses.

Testifying experts

If the witness needs to testify in court, the privilege is no longer protected. The expert witness's identity and nearly all documents used to prepare the testimony will become discoverable. Usually an experienced lawyer will advise the expert not to take notes on documents because all of the notes will be available to the other party.

An expert testifying in court must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Generally, under Rule 702, an expert is a person with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" who can "assist the trier of fact,” which is typically a jury. A qualified expert may testify “in the form of an opinion or otherwise” so long as: “(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts. Senior physicians — U.K., Ireland, and Commonwealth consultants, U.S. attending physicians — are frequently used in both the civil and criminal courts.

The Federal Court of Australia has issued guidelines for experts appearing in Australia courts. This covers the format of the expert's written testimony as well as their behaviour in court. Similar procedures apply in non-court forums, such as the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

See also

Ambush defence

Daubert Standard and ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals''

Death of an Expert Witness - a novel

Employment consultant

Expert shopping

Expertpages

Forensic accountant

Forensic economics

Forensic engineering

Forensic science

Forensic psychology

Gibson's law

''In limine''

''Jones v Kaney'' — English caselaw abolishing witness immunity from civil action for negligence

''Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael''

Questioned document examination

''R. v. Mohan'' — Canadian caselaw establishing qualifications for expert witnesses

Ultimate issue

Vehicular accident reconstruction

References

Bibliography

Bronstein, DA, ''Law for the Expert Witness'', CRC Press,2nd Ed (1999).

Dwyer, D, ''The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence'', Cambridge University Press (2008).

Reynolds, MP and King, PSD, ''The Expert Witness and his Evidence'', Blackwell (1992).

Smith, D, ''Being an Effective Expert Witness'', Thames Publishing (1993).

External links

Experts & Institutions: Centre for the study of expert knowledge in law and society

Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis (pdf) (Federal Judicial Center, 2000)

Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. ''Daubert''-The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of (pdf)

Kenton K. Yee, Dueling Experts and Imperfect Verification, 28.4 International Review of Law and Economics, 246-255 (2008)

Category:Evidence law

bg:Вещо лице cs:Soudní znalec de:Sachverständiger fr:Expert judiciaire he:עד מומחה lt:Teismo ekspertas hu:Igazságügyi szakértő pl:Biegły sądowy sr:Стручни сведок tr:Bilirkişi

Charles Randal Smith was a Canadian pathologist who was the head pediatric forensic pathologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, from 1982 to 2003. The quality of his autopsies, and the resulting criminal charges and convictions of several people, have been called into question and a full public inquiry was ordered. The inquiry found there to be fundamental errors made on the part of Smith and many of the cases in which he had testified are now being re-examined and appealed.

In 2008, the chief forensic pathologist for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, began a public inquiry into 220 cases of shaken baby syndrome to determine if anyone was wrongfully convicted in the babies' deaths.

Early life and career

Smith graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada in 1975. He completed his training in Pathology at the University of Toronto and was certified as an anatomical pathologist in 1980. He joined the Hospital for Sick Children in 1981 as one of the rotating team of pathologists, and shortly was doing autopsies on children who had met sudden or suspicious deaths.

In 1992 the Ontario Coroner's Office created a pediatric forensic pathology unit at Hospital for Sick Children and Smith was appointed director. He had become almost solely responsible for investigating suspicious child deaths in Ontario. In this period he conducted hundreds of autopsies and testified in court multiple times. He conducted training sessions for lawyers on how to examine and cross-examine expert witnesses, and training for law-enforcement and medical staff on detecting child abuse.

Notable cases

Maureen Laidley

Maureen Laidley was charged with killing Tyrell Salmon, the three-year-old son of her boyfriend. Laidley says the boy had jumped off the couch, slipped and struck his head on a marble coffee table, but was arrested after Smith informed them that such injuries could not result in death. The charge was abruptly stayed when outside experts testified that the injuries were fully consistent with Laidley's account.

William Mullins-Johnson

William Mullins-Johnson of Sault Ste. Marie was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Valin Johnson after a two and half week trial in September 1994. He was convicted after a jury trial in which Smith’s evidence played a major role in determining the time of death, the cause of death and whether the girl had been sexually assaulted. Mullins-Johnson had babysat Valin, 4, and her 3-year-old brother on the evening of June 26, 1993. When the girl's mother returned home, she did not check on her daughter. At 7 a.m. the next day she found Valin dead in bed.

A local pathologist performed an autopsy on Valin. Then "consultation reports" were sought from Smith and four other specialists, based on tissue samples and other evidence from the autopsy. Smith was the only consultant to conclude Valin was sexually assaulted at the time of death. That contradicted the defence's point that Valin, who had a history of vomiting in bed, might have died of natural causes. The jury convicted, which the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld in 1996. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a further appeal in 1998.

Attempts were made to clear his name based on available DNA technology, but the tissue could not be located by Smith, who was given the evidence by the pathologist who did the autopsy, until 2005, 11 years after the trial, when the missing tissue samples turned up in Smith’s office. William Mullins-Johnson was released on bail in 2005, pending review of his case. On July 16, 2007, a report by three expert pathologists (a report written unbeknownst to the lawyers working on his behalf) determined there was no evidence that the girl was sexually assaulted, and the Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, said that William Mullins-Johnson's conviction “cannot stand” and that he should be acquitted by the appeals court. On October 15, 2007 he was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In 2010, 5 years after he filed a 13-million dollar law suit, he received 4.25 million dollars in compensation settlement from the government of Ontario.

Sherry Sherret

On the morning of January 23, 1996, Sherry Sherret found her four month old son Joshua lying in his bed not breathing. He was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. Three and a half years later she was given the option to accept a plea of infanticide. She was convicted of infanticide without offering a defence (but offering no admission of guilt) in a plea (the delay was primarily attributable to Smith's unavailability to testify). Sherret was jailed on the basis of Smith's opinion that her four-month-old son Joshua had a skull fracture, and that he had been smothered. She was released on bail in 1996 and remained on bail until the conviction. Sherret's sentence was 1 year in jail and 2 years probation. Sherret served eight months in total, and was entered into the child abuse registry. Her older child was removed by Children's Aid, and in order to get him out of foster care, she agreed to give him up for adoption and have no physical contact with him until he was 18. Later exhumation of the child and examination of the skull have shown that there was no skull fracture. It is thought Dr. Smith confused the normal gap between the baby's skull plates for an injury. On Dec. 7, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal exonerated Sherret, stating that it was "profoundly regrettable that due to flaws in pathological evidence" she was wrongfully convicted.

Brenda Waudby

Brenda Waudby of Peterborough was charged with beating her 2-year-old daughter Jenna to death on January 22, 1997, on the basis of Smith's professional opinion as to what time the injuries were inflicted.

Anthony Kporwodu and Angela Veno

Anthony Kporwodu and Angela Veno were charged in 1997 with murdering their infant daughter. Smith took more than seven months to prepare his initial autopsy report. The charges were ultimately thrown out by a judge for violating the constitutional right to a timely trial.

Louise Reynolds

Louise Reynolds was a 28 year old single mother living in Kingston, Ontario, charged with second degree murder for having killed her seven-year old daughter Sharon in 1997 by stabbing her more than 80 times with a pair of scissors. Much of the case rested on Dr. Smith’s 10-page autopsy report. In January 2001 the Crown abruptly dropped the charges, after numerous experts, including Crown witnesses, disagreed with Smith and agreed that a powerful dog had mauled the girl (there was a pit-bull present in the house at the time). By then, Reynolds had spent 22 months in custody.

Louise Reynolds sued in March 2007. Despite the rules related to Crown immunity, the Court of Appeal ruled, in a ground-breaking decision, that the suit against Smith and other experts could go ahead: while court testimony is protected, faulty work is not.

Dinesh Kumar

Dinesh Kumar was a 26 year old Punjabi immigrant to Canada who was charged with Second Degree Murder in the death of his infant son in 1992. He accepted a Plea Deal of Criminal Negligence causing Death with a 90 day sentence. He was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, January 20th, 2011. His case was part of the review ordered of Dr. Smith's cases following the Goudge Inquiry.

Tammy Marquardt

Tammy Marquardt was convicted in Ontario in 1995 of killing her two-year-old son, who had epilepsy. Her conviction rested in large part upon testimony from Smith, who concluded the boy had been strangled or smothered. She was sentenced to life in prison, and her two other children were taken from her and put up for adoption. Marquardt's conviction was set aside on 10 February 2011 by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Prosecutors agreed her trial had been faulty because of Smith's unreliable testimony, but they would not say whether a retrial would be sought or not. On June 6th, murder charges were withdrawn.

Outcome

In 2002, Smith was reprimanded with a caution by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons for his work on three suspicious-death cases, and in 2003 he was removed from performing autopsies.

In July 2005 he resigned from Sick Children's Hospital to take up a position at Saskatoon City Hospital in Saskatchewan. He failed to mention to his new employers that he was under investigation for misconduct in Ontario. In December 2005 he was dismissed. He successfully appealed, but was not reinstated because he was not licensed to practise in Saskatchewan. He then pled guilty to a charge of unprofessional conduct laid by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, for his failure to disclose that he was under investigation in Ontario.

In June 2005, the Chief Coroner of Ontario ordered a review of 44 autopsies carried out by Smith. Thirteen of these cases had resulted in criminal charges and convictions. The report was released in April 2007, indicating that there were substantial problems with 20 of the autopsies.

In response to this report, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant announced that there would be a full public inquiry into the state of pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario. The Goudge Inquiry began hearing evidence on November 12, 2007. Justice Goudge's report, released on October 1, 2008 concluded that there were serious problems with the way suspicious deaths involving children are handled in Ontario. He pointed to the problems that had been found with the 20 or so problematic cases that Charles Smith had handled as evidence of serious problems in the Ontario system.

As of 2007 Smith has been living in Victoria, British Columbia, with partner Dr Bonnie Leadbeater, director of the Centre for Youth and Society at the University of Victoria.

On February 1, 2011 Smith was stripped of his licence during a hearing by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

References

External links

CBC Biography

Injustice Busters coverage

Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted news clippings regarding Smith

Report and inquiry

Goudge Inquiry Site

The Charles Smith Blog by Harold Levy, a retired TorStar reporter writing a book on Smith

The Coroner's Report

Category:Canadian evangelicals Category:Canadian pathologists Category:Forensic pathologists Category:Living people Category:Members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Category:University of Saskatchewan alumni Category:University of Toronto alumni Category:Year of birth missing (living people) Category:Place of birth missing (living people) Category:Overturned convictions

Date	Died June 16, 2008Reported missing July 15, 2008Remains found December 11, 2008
Place	Orlando, Florida
Suspects	Casey Anthony, mother, put on trial May 24, 2011.
Verdict	July 5, 2011: Not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. }}

Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – June 16, 2008) was a two-year-old girl reported missing in Orlando, Florida in July 2008, whose remains were found in a wooded area near her home in December 2008. Her 22-year-old mother, Casey Anthony, was acquitted of first degree murder, but convicted of lying to police officers, in a televised trial in the summer of 2011 that was described by ''Time'' magazine as "the social media trial of the century".

Casey and Caylee lived with George and Cindy Anthony, the maternal grandparents. On July 15, 2008, Caylee was reported missing to 9-1-1 by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days and that Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside it. She said Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts and finally admitted that day that she had not seen her daughter for weeks. Casey fabricated various stories including telling detectives the child had been kidnapped by a fictitious nanny on June 9, and that she had been trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities. With the child still missing, Casey was charged with first degree murder in October and plead not guilty. On December 11, Caylee's skeletal remains were found with a blanket inside a trash bag in a wooded area near the family home. Investigative reports and trial testimony altered between duct tape being found near the front of the skull and on the mouth of the skull. The medical examiner mentioned duct tape as one reason she ruled the death a homicide, but officially listed it as "death by undetermined means".

The trial lasted six weeks, from May to July 2011. The prosecution sought the death penalty and alleged Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform, then applying duct tape, because she wanted her freedom. The defense team, led by Jose Baez, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that Casey lied about this and other issues because of a dysfunctional upbringing, which they said included sexual abuse by her father. The defense did not present evidence as to how Caylee died, nor evidence that Casey was sexually abused as a child, but challenged every piece of the prosecution's evidence, calling much of it "fantasy forensics". Casey did not testify during the trial.

On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. With credit for time served, she was released on July 17. The verdict was greeted with public outrage, and was both attacked and defended by media and legal commentators. Some complained that the jury misunderstood the meaning of reasonable doubt, while others said the prosecution relied too heavily on the defendant's allegedly poor moral character, because it had been unable to show conclusively how the victim had died.

Disappearance

According to Casey Anthony's father, George Anthony, Casey left the family's home on June 16, 2008, taking her daughter, Caylee (who was almost three) with her and did not return for 31 days. Casey's mother Cindy asked repeatedly during the month to see Caylee, but Casey claimed that she was too busy with a work assignment in Tampa, Florida. At other times, she said Caylee was with a nanny, who Casey identified by the name of Zenaida "Zanny" Fernandez-Gonzalez, or at theme parks or the beach. It was eventually determined that a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez did in fact exist, but that she had never met Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, any member of the Anthony family, or any of Casey's friends.

On July 13, 2008, while doing yard work, Cindy and George Anthony found a notice from the post office for a certified letter affixed on their front door. George Anthony picked up the certified letter from the post office on July 15, 2008, and found that his daughter's car was in a tow yard. When George picked up the car, both he and the tow yard attendant noted a strong smell coming from the trunk. Both later stated that they believed the odor to be that of a decomposing body. When the trunk was opened, it contained a bag of trash, but no human remains.

Cindy Anthony reported Caylee missing that day, July 15, to the Orange County Sheriff's Office. During the same telephone call, Casey Anthony told the 911 operator that Caylee had been missing for 31 days. Sounding distraught, Cindy said: "There is something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

Case

Investigation

When Detective Yuri Melich, with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, began investigating the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, he found discrepancies in Casey's signed statement. When questioned, Casey said Caylee had been kidnapped by Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, who she also identified as "Zanny", Caylee's nanny. Although Casey had talked about Zanny, she had never been seen by Casey's family or friends, and in fact there was no nanny. Casey also told police that she was working at Universal Studios, a lie she had been telling her parents for years. Investigators brought Casey to Universal Studios on July 16, 2008, the day after Caylee was reported missing, and asked her to show them her office. Casey led police around for a while before admitting that she had been fired years before.

Casey Anthony was first arrested on July 16, 2008, and was charged the following day with giving false statements to law enforcement, child neglect, and obstruction of a criminal investigation. The judge denied bail, saying Casey had shown "woeful disregard for the welfare of her child". On August 21, 2008, after one month of incarceration, Casey Anthony was released from the Orange County jail after her $500,200 bond was posted by the nephew of California bail bondsman Leonard Padilla in hopes that Casey would cooperate and Caylee would be found.

On August 11, 12, and 13, 2008, meter reader Roy Kronk called police about a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence. In the first instance, he was directed by the sheriff's office to call the Tip line which he did but received no return call. On the second instance, he again called the sheriff's office and eventually was met by two police officers and he reported to them that he had seen what appeared to be a skull near a gray bag. On that occasion, the officer conducted a short search and stated he did not see anything. On December 11, 2008, Kronk again called the police. They searched and found the remains of a child in a trash bag. Investigative teams recovered duct tape which was hanging from Caylee's hair and some tissue left on her skull. Over the next four days, more bones were found in the wooded area near the spot where the remains initially had been discovered. Over the next four days, more bones were found in the wooded area near the spot where the remains initially had been discovered. On December 19, 2008, medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia confirmed that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony. The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined.

Arrests and charges

Casey Anthony was offered a limited immunity deal on July 29, 2008 by prosecutors related to "the false statements given to law enforcement about locating her child" which was renewed on August 25, to expire August 28. She did not take it.

On September 5, 2008, she was released again on bail on all pending charges after being fitted with an electronic tracking device. Her $500,000 bond was posted by her parents, Cindy and George Anthony, who signed a promissory note for the bond.

On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony was indicted by a grand jury on charges of first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police. She was later arrested. Judge John Jordan ordered that she be held without bond. On October 21, 2008, the charges of child neglect were dropped against Casey, according to the State Attorney's Office because "the evidence proved that the child was deceased, the State sought an indictment on the legally appropriate charges." On October 28 Anthony was arraigned and pled not guilty to all charges.

On April 13, 2009, prosecutors announced that they planned to seek the death penalty in this case.

Evidence

400 pieces of evidence were presented. A strand of hair was recovered from the trunk of Casey's car which was microscopically similar to hair taken from Caylee Anthony's hairbrush. The recovered strand showed "root-banding," in which hair roots form a dark band after death, which was consistent with hair from a dead body.

Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered what eventually turned out to be the remains of Caylee Anthony, told the same basic story that he had told police. On Friday, October 24, 2008, a forensic report by Dr. Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated that results from an air sampling procedure (called LIBS) performed in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car showed chemical compounds "consistent with a decompositional event" based on the presence of five key chemical compounds out of over 400 possible chemical compounds that Dr. Vass' research group considers typical of decomposition (though human decomposition was not specified). Whether or not the decomposition was human is still unknown, but was indicated as a possibility. The process has not been affirmed by a Daubert Test in the courts. Dr. Vass' group also stated there was chloroform in the car trunk. On November 26, 2008, officials released 700 pages of documents related to the Anthony investigation, which included evidence of Google searches of the terms "neck breaking", "how to make chloroform", and "death" on the Anthony home computer.

On February 18, 2009, documents released by the State Attorney's Office in Florida indicated that the same type of laundry bag, duct tape, and plastic bags discovered at the crime scene were found in the house where Casey and Caylee resided. Heart-shaped stickers were also recovered by investigators. According to detectives, a heart-shaped outline was originally seen on the duct tape they stated was recovered from the mouth area of Caylee's skull, but the laboratory was not able to capture the heart-shape photographically and could no longer see it after the duct tape was dusted for fingerprint processing. The documents also indicate that Cindy Anthony stated to them that a Winnie the Pooh blanket was missing from Caylee's bed. This type of blanket was found at the crime scene.

Photos were also entered into evidence, one from the computer of Ricardo Morales, an ex-boyfriend of Casey Anthony, which depicts a poster with the caption "Win her over with Chloroform".

Witness John Dennis Bradley's software, developed for computer investigations, was used by the prosecution to indicate that Casey Anthony had conducted extensive computer searches on the word "chloroform" 84 times, suggesting that Anthony had planned to commit murder. On June 21, Bradley discovered that a flaw in the software misread the forensic data and that the word "chloroform" had only been searched for one time and the website in question offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s. He immediately alerted prosecutor Linda Burdick and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office the weekend of June 25 about the discrepancy, and volunteered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to show them. The prosecution stated they discussed the issue with defense attorney Jose Baez on June 27 and he raised the issue in court testimony and in closing. Baez also asked Judge Perry to instruct the jury about this search information, but prosecutors disputed this and it was not done. On July 5, prosecutors state that, during deliberations, they were about to give the jury the corrected information; however, the jury reached a verdict before they could do so. One legal analyst stated that if the jury had found Anthony guilty before receiving the exculpatory evidence, the prosecution's failure to fully disclose it could have been grounds for a mistrial.

Criminal trial

Attorneys and jury

The lead prosecutor in the case was Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick. Assistant State Attorneys Frank George and Jeff Ashton completed the prosecution team. Lead counsel for the defense was Jose Baez, a Florida criminal defense attorney. Attorneys J. Cheney Mason, Dorothy Clay Sims, and Ann Finnell served as co-counsel. During the trial, attorney Mark Lippman represented George and Cindy Anthony.

Selection of the jury began on May 9, 2011, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater, Florida, because the case had been so widely reported in the Orlando area. Jurors were brought from Pinellas County to Orlando. Jury selection took longer than expected and ended on May 20, 2011, with twelve jurors and five alternatives being sworn in. The panel contained nine women and eight men. The trial took six weeks, during which time the jury was sequestered to avoid influence from information available outside the courtroom.

Opening statements and witness testimony

The trial began on May 24, 2011, at the Orange County Courthouse, with Judge Belvin Perry presiding. In the opening statements, lead prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick described the story of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony day-by-day. The defense, led by Jose Baez, claimed in opening statements that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family's pool on June 16, 2008, and was found by George Anthony, who then covered up Caylee's death and made it so that it would be a secret kept between himself and Casey, to protect her from accusations of child neglect. This, Baez argued, is why Casey Anthony went on with her life and failed to report the incident for 31 days. He claimed that it was the habit of a lifetime for Casey to hide her pain and pretend nothing was wrong, since she had been sexually abused by George Anthony since she was eight years old, and her brother Lee had also made advances toward her, but that this was also all kept secret. The prosecution alleged an intentional murder and sought the death penalty against Casey Anthony. Prosecutors alleged that Anthony used chloroform to render her daughter unconscious before putting duct tape over her nose and mouth to suffocate her, and left Caylee's body in the trunk of her car for a few days before disposing of it. The prosecution painted Anthony as a party girl who killed her daughter to free herself from parental responsibility and enjoy her personal life.

Prosecutors called George Anthony as their first witness, and, in a response to their question, he denied having sexually abused his daughter Casey. Baez asked an FBI analyst about the paternity test the FBI conducted to see if Lee was Caylee's father. She told the jury the test had come back negative.

Regarding a photo on the computer of Ricardo Morales, an ex-boyfriend of Casey Anthony, depicting a poster with the caption "Win her over with Chloroform," Morales said that the photo was on his Myspace page and that he had never discussed chloroform with Anthony or searched for chloroform on her computer.

The prosecution called John Dennis Bradley, a former Canadian law enforcement officer who develops software for computer investigations, to analyze a data file from a desktop taken from the Anthony home. Bradley said he was able to use a program to recover deleted searches from March 17 and March 21, 2008, and that someone searched the website Sci-spot.com for "chloroform" 84 times. Bradley expressed his belief that "some of these items might have been bookmarked". Under cross examination by the defense, Bradley agreed there were two individual accounts on the desktop and that there was no way to know who actually performed the searches. Bradley later discovered that his analysis was inaccurate and that there was only one search for chloroform, though this information was not presented to jurors by the prosecution (see above).

K9 handler Jason Forgey testified that Gerus, a German shepherd cadaver dog certified in 2005, indicated a high alert of human decomposition in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, saying the police dog has had real-world searches numbering "over three thousand by now". Sgt. Kristin Brewer also testified that her K9 partner, Bones, signaled decomposition in the backyard during a search in July 2008. However, neither K9 partner was able to detect decomposition during a second visit to the Anthony home. Brewer explained that this was because whatever had been in the yard was either moved or the odor dissipated. During cross-examination, Baez argued that the dog’s search records were "hearsay".

The prosecution called the chief medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia to the stand, who testified that she determined Caylee's manner of death to be homicide but listed it as "death by undetermined means". Garavaglia took into account the physical evidence present on the remains she examined, as well as all the available information on the way they were found and what she had been told by the authorities, before arriving at her determination. "We know by our observations that it's a red flag when a child has not been reported to authorities with injury, there's foul play," Garavaglia said. " ... There is no child that should have duct tape on the lower part of its face when it dies." Additionally, Garavaglia addressed the chloroform evidence found by investigators inside the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, testifying that even a small amount of chloroform would be sufficient to cause the death of a child.

University of Florida professor and human identification laboratory director Michael Warren was brought on by the prosecution to present a computer animation of the way duct tape could have been used in the death of child, which the defense objected to hearing. Judge Perry, after a short recess to review, ruled that the video could be shown to the jury. The animation featured a picture of Caylee Anthony taken alongside Casey Anthony, superimposed with an image of Caylee's decomposed skull, and another with a strip of duct tape that was recovered with her remains. The images were slowly brought together showing that the duct tape could have covered her nose and mouth. Baez stated, "This disgusting superimposition is nothing more than a fantasy ...They're throwing things against the wall and seeing if it sticks." Jurors were seen taking notes of the imagery, and Warren testified that it was his opinion that the duct tape found with Caylee's skull was placed there before her body began decomposing.

FBI latent print examiner Elizabeth Fontaine testified that adhesive in the shape of a heart was found on a corner of a piece of duct tape that was covering the mouth portion of Caylee's remains during ultraviolet testing. Fontaine examined three pieces of duct tape found on Caylee's remains for fingerprints, and said she did not find fingerprints but did not expect to, given the months the tape and the remains had been outdoors and exposed to the elements, stressing that any oil or sweat from a person's fingertips would have long since deteriorated. Though Fontaine showed the findings to her supervisor, she did not try to photograph the heart-shaped adhesive, explaining, "When I observe something is unexpected, I note it and continue with my examination" and that she tried to photograph it later after subjecting the tape to dye testing, but the adhesive was no longer visible.

Challenging Garavaglia's autopsy report was forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, who performed a second autopsy on Caylee after Garavagli. He called Garavaglia's autopsy "shoddy," saying it was a failure that Caylee's skull was not opened during her examination. "You need to examine the whole body in an autopsy," he said. Spitz stated that he was not allowed to attend Garavaglia's initial autopsy on Caylee's remains, and that, from his own follow-up autopsy, he was not comfortable ruling the child's death a homicide. He said he could not determine what Caylee Anthony's manner of death was, but said that there was no indication to him that she was murdered. Additionally, Spitz testified that he believed the duct tape found on Caylee's skull was placed there after the body decomposed, opining that if tape was placed on the skin, there should have been DNA left on it, and suggested that that someone may have staged some of the crime scene photos. "The person who took this picture, the person who prepared this, put the hair there," stated Spitz. When asked by Ashton during cross examination, "So your testimony is the medical examiner's personnel took the hair that wasn't on the skull, placed it there?", Spitz answered, "It wouldn't be the first time, sir. I can tell you some horror stories about that."

Baez called Cindy Anthony to the stand, who told jurors she had been the one who performed the "chloroform" search on the family computer in March 2008. The prosecution alleged that only Casey Anthony could have conducted this search and the others because she was the only one home at the time. Cindy Anthony said despite her time sheet from work indicating she was working, she was at home during these time periods because she went home from work early during the days in question.

The Judge temporarily halted proceedings on June 25 when the defense filed a motion to determine if Anthony was competent to proceed with trial. The motion states the defense received a privileged communication from their client which caused them to believe "...Ms. Anthony is not competent to aid and assist in her own defense". The trial resumed on June 27 when the Judge announced that the results of the psychological evaluations showed Anthony was competent to proceed. Later, in testimony about air samples, Dr. Ken Furton, a professor of chemistry at Florida International University, stated that there is no consensus in the field on what chemicals are typical of human decomposition. Judge Perry ruled that the jury would not get to smell air samples taken from the trunk.

On June 28, Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered what later turned out to be the remains of Caylee Anthony, testified as a defense witness and told the same basic story that he had told police. On June 30, the defense called two government witnesses who did not support the prosecution's assertion that duct tape was found over the child's mouth area. The chief investigator for the medical examiner stated that the original placement of the duct tape was unclear and it could have shifted positions as he collected the remains. Cindy Anthony testified that their family buried their pets in blankets and plastic bags, using duct tape to seal the opening. Additionally, an FBI forensic document examiner found no evidence of a sticker or sticker residue on the duct tape found near the child's remains.

Also on June 30, the defense called Krystal Holloway, a volunteer in the search for Caylee, who stated that she had an affair with George Anthony, he had been to her home and that he had texted her, "Just thinking about you. I need you in my life." She told the defense that George Anthony had told her that Caylee's death was "an accident that snowballed out of control." Under cross-examination by prosecutors, they pointed to her sworn police statement in which she says George Anthony believes it was an accident, rather than knowing that it was. In her initial report, Holloway reported George Anthony saying, "I really believe that it was an accident that just went wrong and (Casey Anthony) tried to cover it up." She said he had not told her he was present when the alleged accident occurred. During redirect examination, Baez asked Holloway if Anthony told her Caylee was dead while stating publicly she was missing, and she said yes.

In his earlier testimony, George Anthony denied the affair with Holloway and said he only visited Krystal Holloway because she was ill. He said he sent the text message because he needed everyone who had helped in his life. After Holloway's testimony, Judge Perry told jurors that Holloway’s testimony could be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but that it was not proof of how Caylee died and or evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.

The prosecution rested its case on June 15, after calling 59 witnesses for 70 different testimonies. The defense rested its case on June 30, after calling 47 witnesses for 63 different testimonies. Casey Anthony did not testify.

Closing arguments

Closing arguments were heard from June 30 to July 4. Since the defense offered no proof of any sexual abuse of Casey by either George or Lee Anthony, they were not allowed to mention those claims in the closing arguments. Baez contended that there were holes in the prosecution's forensic evidence, saying it was based on a "fantasy". He told the jury that the prosecution wanted them to see stains and insects that did not really exist, that they had not proven that the stains in Anthony's car trunk were caused by Caylee's decomposing body, rather than from a trash bag found there. He added that the prosecutors tried to make his client look like a promiscuous liar because their evidence was weak. He said the drowning is "the only explanation that makes sense" and showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself. He stressed that there were no child safety locks in the home and that both of Casey Anthony's parents, George and Cindy Anthony, testified that Caylee could get out of the house easily. Although Cindy Anthony testified that Caylee could not put the ladder on the side of the pool and climb up, Baez alleged that Cindy Anthony may have left the ladder up the night before. "She didn't admit to doing so in testimony", he said, "but how much guilt would she have knowing it was her that left the ladder up that day?"

Defense attorney Jose Baez told jurors his biggest fear was that they would base their verdict on emotions, not evidence. "The strategy behind that is, if you hate her, if you think she's a lying, no-good slut, then you'll start to look at this evidence in a different light", he said. "I told you at the very beginning of this case that this was an accident that snowballed out of control... What made it unique is not what happened, but who it happened to." He explained Casey Anthony's behavior as being the result of her dysfunctional family situation. At one point as Baez spoke, Ashton could be seen smiling or chuckling behind his hand. This prompted Baez to refer to him as "this laughing guy right here". The judge called a sidebar conference, then a recess. When court resumed, he chastised both sides, saying both Ashton and Baez had violated his order that neither side should make disparaging remarks about opposing counsel. After both attorneys apologized, the judge accepted the apologies but warned that a recurrence would have the offending attorney excluded from the courtroom.

Defense attorney Cheney Mason then followed with an additional closing argument. Addressing the jury to discuss the charges against Casey Anthony. "The burden rests on the shoulders of my colleagues at the state attorney's office", Mason said, referring to proving that Casey Anthony committed a crime. Mason said that the jurors are required, whether they like it or not, to find the defendant not guilty if the state did not adequately prove its case against Casey Anthony. Mason emphasized that the burden of proof is on the state, and that Casey Anthony's decision not to testify is not an implication of guilt.

On July 3, 2011, Jeff Ashton, for the prosecution, told the jury, "When you have a child, that child becomes your life. This case is about the clash between that responsibility, and the expectations that go with it, and the life that Casey Anthony wanted to have." He outlined the state's case against Casey Anthony, touching on her many lies to her parents and others, the smell in her car's trunk—identified by several witnesses, including her own father, as the odor from human decomposition—and the items found with Caylee's skeletal remains in December 2008. He emphasized how Anthony "maintains her lies until they absolutely cannot be maintained any more" and then replaces [them] with another lie, using "Zanny the Nanny" as an example. Anthony repeatedly told police that Caylee was with the nanny that she specifically identifies as Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. Police, however, were never able to find the nanny. Authorities did find a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, but she denied ever meeting the Anthonys.

Ashton reintroduced the items found with Caylee's remains, including a Winnie the Pooh blanket that matched the bedding at her grandparents' home, one of a set of laundry bags with the twin bag found at the Anthony home, and duct tape he said was a relatively rare brand. "That bag is Caylee's coffin", Ashton said, holding up a photograph of the laundry bag, as Casey Anthony reacted with emotion. He further criticized the defense's theory that Caylee drowned in the Anthony pool and that Casey and George Anthony panicked upon finding the child's body and covered up her death. He advised jurors to use their common sense when deciding on a verdict. "No one makes an accident look like murder", he said.

Lead prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick told the jurors that she and her colleagues backed up every claim they made in their opening statement six weeks ago, and implied that the defense never directly backed up its own opening-statement claim that Caylee drowned and that George Anthony made the death look like a murder. "My biggest fear is that common sense will be lost in all the rhetoric of the case," she said, insisting that she would never ask the jury to make their decision based on emotion but rather the evidence. "Responses to guilt are oh, so predictable," she stated. "What do guilty people do? They lie, they avoid, they run, they mislead... they divert attention away from themselves and they act like nothing is wrong." She suggested that the garbage bag in the trunk of the car was a "decoy" put there to keep people from getting suspicious about the smell of the car when she left it abandoned in a parking stall directly beside a dumpster in an Amscot parking lot. "Whose life was better without Caylee?" she asked, stressing how George and Cindy Anthony were wondering where their daughter and granddaughter were in June and July 2008, the same time Casey was staying at her boyfriend’s apartment while Caylee's body was decomposing in the woods. "That’s the only question you need to answer in considering why Caylee Marie Anthony was left on the side of the road dead." Burdick then showed the jury a split-screen with a photo of Casey partying at a night club on one side and a close-up of the "Bella Vita" (meaning "Beautiful Life") tattoo that she got weeks after Caylee died on the other.

The jury began deliberations on July 4.

Verdict and sentence

On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

On July 7, 2011, sentencing arguments were heard. The defense asked for the sentencing to be based on one count of lying on the grounds that the offenses occurred as part of a single interview with police dealing with the same matter, the disappearance of her daughter, as one continuous lie. The defense also argued for concurrent sentences, that is for all four counts to become one count and the sentence to run together as one. The judge disagreed with defense arguments, finding that Anthony's statements consisted of "four distinct, separate lies" ordered the sentences be served consecutively, noting that "Law enforcement expended a great deal of time, energy and manpower looking for Caylee Marie Anthony. This search went on from July through December, over several months, trying to find Caylee Marie Anthony." Judge Perry sentenced her as follows:

Count Four: The defendant told law enforcement that she was employed at Universal Studios during 2008, pursuant to the investigation of a missing persons report.

Count Five: The defendant told law enforcement that she had left Caylee at an apartment complex with a babysitter causing law enforcement to pursue the missing babysitter.

Count Six: The defendant told law enforcement that she informed two "employees" of Universal Studios, Jeff Hopkins and Juliet Lewis, at Universal, of the disappearance of Caylee.

Count Seven: The defendant told law enforcement that she had received a call and spoke to Caylee on July 15, 2008 causing law enforcement to expend further resources. Judge Perry sentenced Casey Anthony to one year in jail and $1000 in fines for each of the four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, the maximum penalty prescribed by law. She received three years credit for time served plus additional credit for good behavior, resulting in her release on July 17, 2011. Anthony filed a notice of appeal on July 15, 2011.

Florida Department of Children and Families

In August 2011, the Florida Department of Children and Families released a report based on a three year investigation into the disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony. An agency spokesperson stated "It is the conclusion of the [DCF] that [Casey Anthony] failed to protect her child from harm either through her actions or lack of actions, which tragically resulted in the child's untimely death." Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby commented that theoretically, if Anthony were to have another child, the findings "could be brought up in future allegations," which might mean the state's child protection agency would take swifter action against her if future allegations of abuse were ever raised in Florida.

Publicity and aftermath

The case attracted a significant amount of national media attention, and was regularly the main topic of many TV talk shows, including those hosted by Greta Van Susteren, Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, and others. It has been featured on Fox's ''America's Most Wanted'', NBC's ''Dateline'', and ABC's ''20/20''. Nancy Grace referred to Casey Anthony as the "tot mom" and urged the public to let "the professionals, the psychics and police" do their jobs.

Casey Anthony's parents, Cindy and George, appeared on ''The Today Show'' on October 22, 2008. They maintained their belief that Caylee was alive and would be found. Larry Garrison, president of SilverCreek Entertainment, was their spokesman until he resigned in November 2008, citing that he was leaving due to "the Anthony family's erratic behavior".

More than 6,000 pages of evidence released by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, including hundreds of instant messages between Casey and her ex-boyfriend Tony Rusciano, were the subject of increased scrutiny by the media for clues and possible motives in the homicide. Outside the Anthony home, WESH TV 2 reported that protesters repeatedly shouted "baby killer" and that George Anthony was physically attacked. George Anthony was reported missing on January 22, 2009, after he failed to show up for a meeting with his lawyer, Brad Conway. George was found in a Daytona Beach hotel the next day after sending messages to family members threatening suicide. He was taken to Halifax Hospital for psychiatric evaluation and later released.

During and after the trial

Public and media reactions

The trial has been compared to the O. J. Simpson murder case, both for its widespread media attention and reported "shock" at the "Not Guilty" verdict. At the start of the trial, dozens of people raced to the Orange County Courthouse, hoping to secure one of 50 seats open to the public at the murder trial. Because the case received such thorough media attention in Orlando, jurors were brought in from Pinellas County, Florida and sequestered for the entire trial. The case became a "macabre tourist attraction", as people camped outside for seats in the courtroom, where scuffles also broke out among those wanting seats inside. The ''New York Post'' described the trial as going "from being a newsworthy case to one of the biggest ratings draws in recent memory", and ''Time'' magazine dubbed it "the social media trial of the century". Cable news channels and network news programs became intent upon covering the case as extensively as they could. Scot Safon, executive vice president of HLN, said it was "not about policy" but rather the "very, very strong human dimension" of the case that drove the network to cover it. The audience for HLN's ''Nancy Grace'' rose more than 150 percent, and other news channels deciding to focus on the trial saw their ratings double and triple. HLN achieved its most watched hour in network history (4.575 million) and peaked at 5.205 million when the verdict was read. According to ''The Christian Post'', the O. J. Simpson case had a 91 percent television viewing audience, with 142 million people listening by radio and watching television as the verdict was delivered. "The Simpson case was the longest trial ever held in California, costing more than million to fight and defend, running up 50,000 pages of trial transcript in the process." The Casey Anthony trial was expected to "far exceed" these numbers. Analysts report that a total figure on the cost to the state of Florida and its taxpayers has not yet been calculated, but the figure could be topping out at some million.

Opinions varied on what made the public thoroughly invested in the trial. Safon argued the Anthonys having been a regular and "unremarkable" family with complex relationships made them intriguing to watch. Frank Farley of CNN described the circumstantial evidence as "all over the map" and that combined with "the apparent lying, significant contradictions and flip-flops of testimony, and questionable or bizarre theories of human behavior, it is little wonder that this nation [was] glued to the tube". He said it was a trial that was both a psychologist's dream and nightmare, and believes that much of the public's fascination [had] to do with the uncertainty of a motive for the crime. Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."

When the "Not Guilty" verdict was rendered, there was significant outcry among the general public and media that the jury made the wrong decision. Outside the courthouse, many in the crowd of 500 reacted with anger, chanting their disapproval and waving protest signs. People took to Facebook and Twitter, as well as other social media outlets, to express their outrage. Traffic to news sites surged from about two million page views a minute to 3.3 million, with most of the visits coming from the United States. Mashable reported that between 2 pm and 3 pm, one million viewers were watching CNN.com/live, 30 times higher than the previous month's average. Twitter's trending topics in the United States were mostly about the subjects related to the case, and Newser reported that posts on Facebook were coming in "too fast for all Facebook to even count them, meaning at least 10 per second". Some people referred to the verdict as "O.J. Number 2", and various media personalities and celebrities expressed outrage via Twitter. News anchor Julie Chen became visibly upset while reading the not-guilty verdict on ''The Talk'' and had to be assisted by her fellow co-hosts, who also expressed their dismay.

Others, such as Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, felt the verdict was fair because the prosecution did not have enough evidence to establish guilt or meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hannity said that the verdict was legally correct, and that all of the evidence that was presented by the prosecution was either impeached or contradicted by the defense. John Cloud of ''Time'' magazine echoed these sentiments, saying the jury made the right call: "Anthony got off because the prosecution couldn't answer [the questions]," Cloud stated. "Because the prosecutors had so little physical evidence, they built their case on Anthony's (nearly imperceptible) moral character. The prosecutors seemed to think that if jurors saw what a fantastic liar Anthony was, they would understand that she could also be a murderer."

Disagreement with the verdict was heavily debated by the media, lawyers and psychologists, who put forth several theories for public dissatisfaction with the decision, ranging from wanting justice for Caylee, to the circumstantial evidence having been strong enough, to some blaming the media. UCLA forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman, said, "The main reason that people are reacting so strongly is that the media convicted Casey before the jury decided on the verdict. The public has been whipped up into this frenzy wanting revenge for this poor little adorable child. And because of the desire for revenge, they've been whipped up into a lynch mob." She added, "Nobody likes a liar, and Anthony was a habitual liar. And nobody liked the fact that she was partying after Caylee's death. Casey obviously has a lot of psychological problems. Whether she murdered her daughter or not is another thing."

The case also created a gender gap. According to a ''USA Today''/Gallup Poll of 1,010, while about two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) believe Casey Anthony "definitely" or "probably" murdered her daughter, women are much more likely than men to believe the murder charges against Anthony and to be upset by the not-guilty verdict. The poll reported that women were more than twice as likely as men, 28 percent versus 11 percent, to think Anthony "definitely" committed murder. Twenty-seven percent of women said they were angry about the verdict, compared with nine percent of men. On the day Casey Anthony was sentenced for lying to investigators in the death of her daughter, supporters and protesters gathered outside the Orange County Courthouse, with one man displaying a sign asking Anthony to marry him. Two men who drove overnight from West Virginia held signs that said, "We love and support you Casey Anthony," and "Nancy Grace, stop trying to ruin innocent lives. The jury has spoken. P.S. Our legal system still works!" The gender gap has partly been explained by "the maternal instinct". The idea of a mother murdering her own child threatens what it is to be a mother.

Explanations other than, or emphasizing, the prosecution's lack of forensic evidence were given for the jury's decision. A number of media commentators reasoned that the prosecution overcharged the case by tagging on the death penalty, concluding that people in good conscience could not sentence Anthony to death based on the circumstantial evidence presented. The CSI effect was also extensively argued—that society now lives "in a 'CSI age' where everyone expects fingerprints and DNA, and we are sending a message that old-fashioned circumstantial evidence is not sufficient". Likewise, commentators such as O. J. Simpson case prosecutor Marcia Clark believe that the jury interpreted "reasonable doubt" too narrowly. Clark said instruction on reasonable doubt is "the hardest, most elusive" instruction of all. "And I think it's where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed," she said, opining the confusion between ''reasonable doubt'' and ''a reason to doubt.'' "In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. It's one way of showing that even if the jury didn't believe the evidence amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it didn't find the defendant innocent either. There's a difference."

Defense, prosecution, and jury

Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys, took the stance of those blaming the media for the passionate hatred toward his client. He termed it a "media assassination" of Anthony before and during the trial:

I hope that this is a lesson to those of you who have indulged in media assassination for three years, bias, and prejudice, and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be ... 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 that they don't know a damn thing about, and don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it. Now you have learned a lesson.

Mason's response was especially viewed as critical of Nancy Grace, whose news program is cited as having "almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession". Grace said that she did not understand why Mason would care what pundits are saying, and that she imagines she has tried and covered as many cases as Mason. She criticized the defense attorneys for delivering media criticism before mentioning Caylee's name in their post-verdict news conference, and said she disagrees with the verdict. At a meeting of local professionals, named the Tiger Bay Club of Tampa, Mason told the media and those in attendance that he was surprised at the not-guilty verdict.

State's Attorney Lawson Lamar said, "We're disappointed in the verdict today because we know the facts and we've put in absolutely every piece of evidence that existed. This is a dry-bones case. Very, very difficult to prove. The delay in recovering little Caylee's remains worked to our considerable disadvantage." Jose Baez said, "While we're happy for Casey, there are no winners in this case. Caylee has passed on far, far too soon, and what my driving force has been for the last three years has been always to make sure that there has been justice for Caylee and Casey because Casey did not murder Caylee. It's that simple." He added, "And today our system of justice has not dishonored her memory by a false conviction."

Former Casey Anthony defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden said that the state was trying to "find Elvis on toast". She believes the jury reached the right verdict. "We should embrace their verdict", she stated.

On July 6, 2011, Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton gave his first interview about the case on ''The View''. Ashton said of the verdict, "Obviously, it's not the outcome we wanted. But from the perspective of what we do, this was a fantastic case." He disagrees with those who state the prosecution overcharged the case, saying, "The facts that we had... this was first-degree murder. I think it all came down to the evidence. I think ultimately it came down to the cause of death." Ashton additionally explained that if the jury did not perceive first-degree murder when they saw the photograph of Caylee's skull with the duct tape, "then so be it". He said he accepts the jury's decision and that it has not taken away his faith in the justice system. "You can't believe in the rule of law and not accept that sometimes it doesn't go the way you think it should", stated Ashton, and explained that he understands why the case "struck such a nerve" with the public. "I think when people see someone that they believe has so gone away from [a mother's love for her child], it just outrages them." Ashton also made appearances on several other talk shows in the days following, and complimented Jose Baez on his cross-examinations and as having "the potential to be a great attorney".

After the trial ended, the twelve jurors did not initially want to discuss the verdict with the media. 51-year-old Russell Huekler, an alternate juror who stepped forward the day of the verdict, said, "The prosecution didn't provide the evidence that was there for any of the charges from first-degree murder down to second-degree murder to the child abuse to even the manslaughter [charge]. It just wasn't there."

The next day, juror number three—Jennifer Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student—told ABC News, "I did not say she was innocent" and "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." She added "I'm not saying that I believe the defense," but that "it's easier for me logically to get from point A to point B" via the defense argument, as opposed to the prosecution argument. She also believed George Anthony was "dishonest." She said the jury "was sick to our stomachs to get that verdict" and that the decision process overwhelmed them to the point where they did not want to talk to reporters afterwards. Juror number two, a 46-year-old male who requested to stay unidentified, told the ''St. Petersburg Times'' that "everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, she was done". He stated that a lack of evidence was the reason for the not guilty verdict: "I just swear to God ... I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do ... But it wasn't there." He also said that Anthony was "not a good person in my opinion". Juror number six, identified by WTSP as Brian Berling, told gossip website TMZ.com that he is willing to be interviewed "so long as the opportunities are paid".

In an anonymous interview, the jury foreman stated, "When I had to sign off on the verdict, the sheet that was given to me – there was just a feeling of disgust that came over me knowing that my signature and [Casey Anthony's] signature were going to be on the same sheet," but that "there was a suspicion of [George Anthony]" that played a part in their deliberations. The foreman stated his work experience enabled him to read people and that George Anthony "had a very selective memory" which stayed with the jurors, emphasizing that the jury was frustrated by the motive, cause of death, and George Anthony. "That a mother would want to do something like that to her child just because she wanted to go out and party," he said. "We felt that the motive that the state provided was, in our eyes, was just kind of weak." Although the foreman objected to Casey Anthony's behavior in the wake of her daughter's death, he and the jury did not factor that behavior into their verdict because it was not illegal. They initially took a vote on the murder count, which was 10-2 (two voting guilty), but after more than ten hours of deliberation, they decided the only charges they felt were proven were the four counts of lying to law enforcement.

The Anthony family

Mark Lippman, the attorney for George and Cindy Anthony, told ABC News that the family received death threats after the "Not Guilty" verdict was rendered. In response to the verdict, a statement was released by Lippman on behalf of the Anthony family (George, Cindy and Lee Anthony):

While the family may never know what has happened to Caylee Marie Anthony, they now have closure for this chapter of their life. They will now begin the long process of rebuilding their lives. Despite the baseless defense chosen by Casey Anthony, the family believes that the Jury made a fair decision based on the evidence presented, the testimony presented, the scientific information presented and the rules that were given to them by the Honorable Judge Perry to guide them. The family hopes that they will be given the time by the media to reflect on this verdict and decide the best way to move forward privately.

It was stated in press reports that Cindy Anthony had perjured herself when telling jurors she—not Casey Anthony—was the one who used her family computer to search the Internet for "chloroform". The state attorney's office said she would not be charged.

On July 6, 2011, Anthony's jailhouse letters were released to the general public. They were originally released (though not to public) in April 2010 by prosecutors preparing for the Anthony trial. In more than 250 handwritten pages, Anthony discusses her life in jail, what she misses, and her plans for the future if freed. Among her hopes for the future, she discusses children. "I had a dream not too long ago that I was pregnant", wrote Anthony, "It was like having Cays all over again. I've thought about adopting, which even sounds weird to me saying it, but there are so many children that deserve to be loved." Additionally, Anthony discusses missing "vain" belongings (such as tweezers and hair dryers), owning her own business, donating money to charities for cancer research, as well as a name change. "If you could change your name to any name, what would it be?" she wrote. "I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Ideas? Many ideas."

On July 8, 2011, Cindy Anthony had scheduled a visit to meet with Casey at 7 pm, but the visit was denied. "This morning under policy, Casey was told of the visit and she has declined the visit so it will not occur", said jail spokesman Allen Moore. Moore also said that Cindy would be notified of her daughter's decision. Mark Lippman told Reuters during the trial that Casey had cut off communication with her parents. In August 2011, George and Cindy Anthony issued a statement that Casey would not be living at their home when she came back to Orlando to serve probation on a non-related matter.

It has been announced that George and Cindy Anthony will be appearing on ''Dr. Phil'' in September to tell their story. According to ''Huffington Post'', Casey Anthony is reportedly working with her probation officer to take online college classes in an unspecified field, while protected by her security, at an undisclosed educational institution.

Civil cases

Anthony is being sued for defamation by a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. During the investigation, Anthony told investigators that she left 2½-year-old Caylee with a babysitter named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez—also known as "Zanny"—on June 16 at the stairs of a specific apartment in the Sawgrass apartment complex located in Orlando, Florida. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who was listed on apartment records as having visited apartments on that date, was questioned by police, but stated she did not know Casey or Caylee Anthony. Her defamation suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that Casey willfully damaged her reputation. Fernandez-Gonzalez told ABC News that she lost her job and was evicted from her house as a result of Anthony's lies. She also received numerous phone calls threatening to kill both her and her six children. Fernandez-Gonzalez' lawyer, John Morgan, said he wants to interrogate Anthony about Caylee's death. While it is likely Anthony's lawyers will object to this line of questioning, Morgan says that Caylee's death is "the essence" of the defamation suit.

Texas EquuSearch (TES), a non-profit group which assisted in the search for Caylee when she was believed to be missing, is suing Anthony for fraud and unjust enrichment. According to the group, they spent more than searching for Caylee even though she was already dead. The lawsuit states, "Casey Anthony knew that her apparent 'cooperation' with the massive searches coordinated by TES created an appearance that she was a victim of law enforcement's unjust investigation and that she was a concerned mother seeking her missing child's return." According the founder of group, TES conducted an unnecessary search from July to December of 2008. TES claims it only learned that Anthony knew all along that Caylee was dead when the trial began, and that it expended 40% of the group's yearly resources which could have been spent looking for other missing children.

It was reported before trial that Anthony would exercise her rights under the Fifth Amendment in response to written questions in a civil case. This protection is extended until she exhausts her appeals for her four convictions of providing false information to law enforcement.

"Caylee's Law" and "Caylee's Song"

Since the end of the trial, various movements have arisen for the creation of a new law, called "Caylee's Law", that would impose stricter requirements on parents to notify law enforcement of the death or disappearance of a child. One such petition, circulated via Change.org, has gained over 920,000 electronic signatures. In response to this and other petitions, lawmakers in four states—Florida, Oklahoma, New York, and West Virginia—have begun drafting versions of "Caylee's Law". The law in Oklahoma would require a child's parent or guardian to notify police of a missing child within 24 hours, and would also stipulate a time frame for notification of the disappearance of a young child under the age of 12. The Florida law would make it a felony if a parent or legal guardian fails to report a missing child in timely manner if they could have known the child would be in danger.

Different artists have written songs in Caylee's memory, often entitled "Caylee's Song". Jon Whynock performed his own version at her memorial service in February 2009, and Sheffield songwriter Earl "Peanutt" Montgomery, an Alabama Music Hall of Fame member known for writing hits for country artist George Jones, penned a "Caylee's Song" soon after hearing the verdict. "Me and my wife talked about it, and I decided to do it", said Montgomery. He sent an MP3 of "Caylee" to CNN and the cable news show ''Nancy Grace'', as well as to various radio stations and Internet radio stations. Rascal Flatts' Gary LeVox collaborated with country comedian and radio host Cledus T. Judd and songwriter Jimmy Yeary to write a song titled "She's Going Places" in Caylee's memory, which would be performed by singer Shane Hines. On July 8, 2011, Grace played it for her audience.

See also

Media circus

Missing white woman syndrome

Trial by media

Unreported missing

References

External links

{{external media | align = right | width = | image1 = CBS photo gallery }}

Casey and Caylee Anthony: Documents, Discovery Channel Casey Anthony trial website

Casey Anthony extended coverage, with timeline, Wesh.com, accessed August 21, 2011.

Category:Deaths by person Category:Trials in the United States

fr:Affaire Caylee Anthony fi:Caylee Anthonyn kuolema zh:凯丽·安东尼之死

name	Roy Marsden
birth name	Roy Mould
birth date	June 25, 1941
birth place	Stepney, London, England
occupation	Actor
yearsactive	1964-present
spouse	Polly Hemingway (?-?) (divorced) 2 children }}

Roy Marsden (born on 25 June 1941 in Stepney, London) is an English actor, who is probably best known for his portrayal of Adam Dalgliesh in the Anglia Television dramatisations of P. D. James's detective novels.

Education

Marsden attended the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) and spent four terms there. He attempted to unionise the students but was thwarted. After one argument he poured a bottle of ink down the front of the director's suit. Marsden recalled, "Two weeks later, he phoned me up and asked if I'd got a job or an agent. I said no, so he arranged for me to start work at a theatre in Nottingham, and who should be the student assistant manager there but Anthony Hopkins. I persuaded him to go to RADA."

Stage

In the early 1960s, Marsden worked with the Royal Shakespeare Company and began to accumulate an extensive list of theatrical credits that include everything from Anton Chekhov and Henrik Ibsen to contemporary Soviet playwright Alexander Vampilov. His preference was for the alternative experimental theatres of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cambridge and Birmingham over London's commercial theatre.

Appearances include Crispen in ''The Friends'', 1970; Casca and Lucilius in ''Julius Caesar'', 1972; Paul Schippel in ''Schippel'', 1974; Heinrich Krey in ''The Plumber's Progress'', 1975. He also played Long John Silver in ''Treasure Island'' at London's Mermaid Theatre around Christmas for two years and Henry Higgins in ''Pygmalion'' at the Albery Theatre. In 2008, Marsden appeared in two productions, ''Murder on Air'' and ''Happy Jack'' at the Theatre Royal Windsor.

Television

Marsden's portrayal of Adam Dalgliesh in Anglia TV's P. D. James series spanned fifteen years. The series began as adaptations played out in serials of five or six one-hour episodes each, which were, unusually for the time, recorded on outside broadcast videotape as opposed to film:

''Death of an Expert Witness'' (1983);

''Shroud for a Nightingale'' (1984);

''Cover Her Face'' (1985);

''The Black Tower'' (1985);

''A Taste for Death'' (1988);

''Devices and Desires'' (1991).

After producer John Rosenberg died in early 1991 (during the transmission run of ''Devices and Desires''), the format of the adaptations changed. Initially, Anglia followed the trend made popular by the ''Inspector Morse'' series, condensing the next two adaptations into two-hour filmed TV movies.

''Unnatural Causes'' (1993);

''A Mind to Murder'' (1995).

The final two adaptations were filmed in three one-hour episodes:

''Original Sin'' (1997);

''A Certain Justice'' (1998).

Marsden was replaced by Martin Shaw when the BBC took over the rights to James's novels.

Marsden also starred in Yorkshire Television's 1978–1980 Cold War espionage series ''The Sandbaggers''. He played Neil Burnside, the dour and fiercely protective head of the covert operations section of British Intelligence, whose character seemed to spend as much time on infighting within Whitehall and his own department as it did in battling the KGB. The show ran for three series and 20 episodes before the untimely disappearance of the show's creator and writer Ian Mackintosh in 1979.

In 1982, Yorkshire Television cast him in ''Airline'', a series in which he played Jack Ruskin, a scrappy World War II pilot trying to start his own post-war airline against establishment opposition. It also starred his wife, Polly Hemingway, who was pregnant with their first child during most of the filming.

In an interview Marsden said "It was one of the most enjoyable programmes I ever made. Learning to fly those old DC-3s was terrific. And I enjoyed playing Ruskin enormously because he had hope. Of course, he was a pain up the tushie most of the time, but then you'd see that youthful desire to actually get out and triumph against enormous odds. I identified with that character the most."

Other prominent television roles include George Osborne in a 1967 adaptation of ''Vanity Fair'' and the title role of Arthur Chipping in 1987's ''Goodbye Mr. Chips''.

Marsden has also made guest appearances in ''The New Avengers'', ''Space: 1999'', ''Only Fools and Horses'' ("Little Problems"), ''Foyle's War'', and ''Tales of the Unexpected''.

In 2007, Marsden presented a nine part crime documentary series ''Roy Marsden's Casebook'' for ITV West. He also appeared in the opening episode of the 2007 series of Doctor Who as Mr Stoker, a medical consultant.

In 2008, he appeared in ITV series ''The Palace'' as King Richard's Private Secretary Sir Iain Ratalick.

In 2009 Marsden reprised his ''Only Fools and Horses'' role as one of the Driscoll brothers in the spin off series of ''The Green Green Grass''. He also appeared in the television film ''Margaret'' (2009).

In 2010 Marsden appeared in an episode of ''New Tricks''.

In 2011 Marsden appeared in an episode of ''Silent Witness''

Film

He has appeared in: ''The Squeeze'', Warner Bros. (1976), a walk-on part with one line (as a Nazi officer) in the classic ''The Eagle Has Landed'' (1976), and as Oberon in ''Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God'' (2005).

External links

References

Category:1941 births Category:Alumni of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art Category:English film actors Category:English television actors Category:People from Stepney Category:Living people

fr:Roy Marsden nl:Roy Marsden sv:Roy Marsden