Casey Anthony Case Analysis

Notoriety a Modern Myth High profile court cases have been getting increasingly popular as time goes on. Court cases like the Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson trials are media dynamite. Although the media is legally allowed to be a part of these court proceedings, they still cause drama and stipulations that many feel would not be a factor if their presence were withdrawn. Notoriety, or being famous for bad deeds, is a characteristic engulfing many of Hollywood’s elite personnel; for this reason, many high profile cases have become even more of a media magnet. Many may believe that notoriety is a determining factor in high profile cases, but all legal proceedings are conducted in the same manner whether heavily documented in the

Case Gone Wrong: Anthony vs State of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357 If ever there was a botched case it was this one with inconsistencies on the part of the State being overwhelming. I watched this trial intently and read everything available.

COURTS The court system is made up of many operational parts that all work together to achieve an overall goal. For my courtroom observation I have chosen the State of Florida v Casey Marie Anthony trial. This trail took place on the 23rd floor of the Orange county courtroom in Florida which seats about 50 people. Casey Marie Anthony (the defendant) is on trial for the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. She is being tried for first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police.

Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman.

In November 2007, Meredith kercher was found dead in the apartment she shared with Amanda Knox. She had been stabbed. the knife wounds and a slashed neck leading to a lack of oxygen. But who could do this? Who would do this? For the past few years Amanda Knox, Kertcher’s roommate, had been accused of her murder. (Amanda Knox Murder a Conviction Overturned) In Rafael sollecitos' apartment, Amanda Knox’s ex boyfriend, there was a kitchen knife with both Knox’s and Kertcher’s DNA on it. With this being the only evidence investigators had, Amanda and Raffial were thrown in jail. (How much does Italy owe Amanda Knox? A lot.) There are many different sources of evidence leading towards different victims who could've committed the crime but in all there is only on killer. Amanda Knox is not guilty but, there is DNA proof that

Many believe that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims conspired to murder their children, but what they fail to realize is that all their “ evidence” is just circumstantial. In court all types of various evidence is presented to the jury. According to Citizens Information “ The general rule is that circumstantial evidence is admissible. However, the courts are careful when the only evidence in a case is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence must be closely examined and it must be looked at cumulatively.

Visual Evidence for the Murder Trial of Andrea Yates The children could hear the terrifying screams from their siblings in the bathroom. One by one all five entered the bathroom where their mother waited for them, unfortunately not a single one would make it out alive. Within six months of this heinous crime Andrea Yates the mother of these five children was put on trial.

Furthermore, everything should have been labeled and placed on an evidence log to ensure that it was the DNA from the actual crime scene. Although, it could have been Mr. Simpson DNA if the proper protocol had been followed they may have been able to get a guilty verdict on the double murder as well as a life sentence. I feel that given all of the fact and evidence in the case that the court did make the right decision. Unfortunately, if the evidence has been contaminated it cannot be used in court and that makes a big difference in a case. Therefore, this case showed the nation that if the evidence does not fit the crime than there is no possible way to find someone guilty of a crime because there is no physical evidence to prove that they actually committed the

Think about how often people get arrested and how often trials are held every year, let alone everyday. Oftentimes, innocent people are accused and charged for a crime that wasn’t there fault. This was the case for Adnan Syed, an innocent guy who was put in jail for a murder case. On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee was murdered at the age of 17. The evidence for this case was very unexplainable, but of course, the state went after Hae’s ex-boyfriend Adnan who really had nothing to do with the murder.

Trayvon Martin was assaulted and shot by George Zimmerman. During the trial visual evidence was used against George Zimmerman. Visual evidence is becoming more and more relevant in these recent trials. The increases use of visual evidence is a definite positive thing, however those who use such evidence should do so wisely. Those who improperly use visual evidence may mislead the jury, and convict/ not convict the right person.

But regardless, everyone in the democratic South Florida area, including myself, were enraged by the racial influence of the not-guilty verdict. Basically, I believe that while murder can sometimes be accidental, murder is murder. No matter who

Also told the judge, the defense 's argument is not newly discovered evidence and the defense knew of this expert during trial. "There 's nothing new for counsel at the time of trial. As far as presentation at trial, the fact that is may have surprised defense counsel, I think they had time prior to trial to get their expert around. I think they were more so upset because we had the better expert," said Rider-Ulacco. Judge Peter Bradstreet denied the defense request for a new trial.

Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite

It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what a jury thinks and I agree with the jury. I believe Steven Avery brutally murdered Teresa Halbach. I have watched the show. I kept waiting for them to tell the truth.

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.