Casey Anthony judge says she was guilty

[DiverMike 5]

I am curious at to what the legal professionals think about a judge who goes on the Today show and indicated Casey Anthony should have been convicted. He made comments like

Quote

There were always two sides to Casey," Perry said. "The public persona that she wanted the jury to see and there was a side that she showed when the jury wasn't there."

Quote

"Justice will finally be served one day by the Judge of Judges," Perry said. "She is going to have to live with this and deal with this for the rest of her life."

and referring to her defense attorney as a used car salesman:

Quote

"He came across as someone you would like," Perry said of Baez. "Like someone trying to sell a used car. Who are you going to buy from? The most likable salesman."

Many people believe the skank is a murderer, but is it appropriate for a judge to go on national TV and assert it when she was found innocent in his courtroom?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[normiss 622]

Unless I heard it wrong, he never said she was guilty.

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

Many people believe the skank is a murderer, but is it appropriate for a judge to go on national TV and assert it when she was found innocent not guilty in his courtroom?

FIFY.
"Not guilty" just means the prosecution did not convince the jury.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[promise5 17]

I read the prosecutions book on this case and it was really good. Would love for the judge to write one and hear his thoughts on the whole process besides just a interview. I wonder if he would be able to once he retired. ???

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Andy9o8 0]

What the judge did was inappropriate and, IMO, of questionable ethics. The judge weasle-worded it enough, but the message to the lay audience was clear. I've known other judges who do that (publicly disagree with a jury's verdict), some even chronically castigating juries to their face when they deliver verdicts the judge disagrees with, and I have to say it's very disrespectful of the jurors, who for the most part work hard and conscientiously to get it right. It's also disrespectful of the citizen jury-based system of justice, as well as to the entire pool of potential jurors - which is to say, you, me and every other citizen.

While I might even agree with the judge's analysis of the evidence, he was way out of line, given his position, to go public with it like that. The jury did their job, and they spoke. If anybody shows the jury and their work product respect as a matter of protocol, it should be him. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves reprimand in the sternest possible terms.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What the judge did was inappropriate and, IMO, of questionable ethics. The judge weasle-worded it enough, but the message to the lay audience was clear. I've known other judges who do that (publicly disagree with a jury's verdict), some even chronically castigating juries to their face when they deliver verdicts the judge disagrees with, and I have to say it's very disrespectful of the jurors, who for the most part work hard and conscientiously to get it right. It's also disrespectful of the citizen jury-based system of justice, as well as to the entire pool of potential jurors - which is to say, you, me and every other citizen.

While I might even agree with the judge's analysis of the evidence, he was way out of line, given his position, to go public with it like that. The jury did their job, and they spoke. If anybody shows the jury and their work product respect as a matter of protocol, it should be him. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves reprimand in the sternest possible terms.

indeed. When you think about the broad rights the judge has to sanction people for what he might view as a lack of respect for the court, this sort of interview is akin to crapping on the bench. It's particularly bad to do it so soon after. If, as a retired judge, he was asked his thoughts, that may allow for his impressions of the players.

The only gotcha to all this - judges are typically elected and periodically confirmed. Is he doing this to avoid being kicked out for the unsatisfying result? Should that concern be enough to allow any of this speaking?

[rehmwa 2]

I have nothing to add to Andy's comments other than I agree with him.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

indeed. When you think about the broad rights the judge has to sanction people for what he might view as a lack of respect for the court, this sort of interview is akin to crapping on the bench. It's particularly bad to do it so soon after. If, as a retired judge, he was asked his thoughts, that may allow for his impressions of the players.

Agreed.

Quote

The only gotcha to all this - judges are typically elected and periodically confirmed. Is he doing this to avoid being kicked out for the unsatisfying result? Should that concern be enough to allow any of this speaking?

Hard to speculate as to his specific motivation. Maybe it's more a matter of personal posterity and legacy - he wants to distance himself from, and not be tarnished by, what he recognizes is publicly perceived as a stinky verdict.

But in any event, I don't think it should make a difference. Professional ethics, IMO, trumps personal agenda. As you said, maybe years from now once in retirement, but now? - no; simply improper.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Wildly inappropriate. The prosecution presented its evidence, and the jury didn't buy it. In our system, that's the end of the story. The judge should face discipline from whatever Florida organization oversees state court judges.

[normiss 622]

Well said and fully agreed.
More so given he is the Chief Justice in the 9th Circuit, and I believe he's involved in the Florida Bar (other than standard member).

Interesting side note, ran into the prosecutor Jeff Ashton at Beefy King a few months ago in Orlando. He's somewhat of a local celebrity and the newly elected State Attorney. Seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't want to meet him in his line of work.

[sfzombie 3]

are judges ever allowed to send it up to a higher court if they disagree with a jury's decision?

http://kitswv.com

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

are judges ever allowed to send it up to a higher court if they disagree with a jury's decision?

No. Appeals can only be filed by a party. A trial court may never "appeal" a trial verdict on its own, AFAIK. Also, in the US, in a criminal case, the prosecution may never appeal a not guilty verdict, due to the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

[regulator 0]

Andy,

If you followed the case could you give me your professional opinion if Casey Anthony is guilty or innocent?

Thanks

[normiss 622]

I think she is guilty.
Not a shred of evidence to prove it though, state didn't prove their case.

[BillyVance 34]

normiss

I think she is guilty.
Not a shred of evidence to prove it though, state didn't prove their case.

Yeah. A lot of the circumstantial stuff and her behavior just didn't strike me as innocent.

There are some real bitches out there, as you already know.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andy9o8 0]

regulator

Andy, If you followed the case could you give me your professional opinion if Casey Anthony is guilty or innocent? Thanks

Truthfully I really didn't follow it. Avoided it, actually, as per my usual habit: except for when I'm wanking around in here, when I'm off duty, I just push away.

[AndyBoyd 0]

regulator

Andy,

If you followed the case could you give me your professional opinion if Casey Anthony is guilty or innocent?

Thanks

I know I'm not the Andy you were talking to, but the only opinion that matters here is the jury's. They were the ones who sat in the courtroom day after day and listened to all of the evidence. Everyone else just got information filtered through the media. (Although, I wonder if the case was televised. I suppose someone without anything better to do could have watched the whole thing.) It's possible the jury got it wrong, but when someone is acquitted at trial, the party is over. The judge here damn well knows that, and he had no business going on TV and undermining the verdict. If I was on that jury, I'd be mad as hell. Don't ask me to give up 3 weeks of my life, or however long that trial was, make me sit in the courtroom and listen to the lawyers blather on, then dump all over me after I give you my verdict. The judge's actions here just made it even harder to convince people to sit on a jury. Now, they have to worry about the judge calling them out in the media.