Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Katherine Scardino

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough burden for the State to meet. The article written by Andrea Campbell and published on Women in Crime last Friday, which discussed the many different types of evidence that may be presented in a criminal trial in the United States, within the context of the Casey Anthony trial. The State may obtain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the defendant, but is not tangible evidence to connect the defendant directly. In other words, there are no crime scene fingerprints, DNA, eyewitnesses to the crime, etc... pointing directly to the accused as the culprit. The jury may render a verdict of guilty based solely on such circumstantial evidence if the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence is credible and proven. But, I do not want to write another Casey Anthony article. Let’s look at evidence another way.

I wrote an article a few weeks ago about the recent flurry of powerful men who had been accused of, to say the least, low morals - or as I wrote - acting like pigs. Along with others, I mentioned Dominique Strauss-Kahn and even violated my own rule by lumping him in with those other men, mainly politicians, who seemed to have a problem keeping their pants zipped. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a little different in that he was actually accused of committing a sexual assault against a maid in his hotel. His position rose to a higher level of accountability and a higher level of loss. He was not looking at an angry, vengeful divorce but the possible loss of his freedom and certainly his reputation and stature in the world.

I think the circumstances surrounding Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest and subsequent public disclosure in shackles are an embarrassment to the United States. We pride ourselves on the basic tenet that here, in the good old USA, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. You hear this constantly. Is that really true? I can answer that as a resounding “No." I can stand in front of a jury and state that each juror must believe that the accused person, standing before you prior to the jury hearing all of the evidence, is an innocent person. But, the mere fact that there is a person accused of misconduct standing in the courtroom around a counsel table with prosecutors, a court reporter, a judge and now a jury, is a weight that bears on the side of the prosecutor. The accused should not be judged in the news media like Mr. Strauss-Kahn was. We should never have arrested him without having done the smallest bit of investigation to at least make the evidence appear credible. 

In Federal court, the general rule is that when a Federal Grand Jury indicts a citizen of the United States, the US Attorney’s office has already conducted an investigation sufficient to believe that the accused is actually guilty. Don’t get me wrong - that does not mean that he is truly guilty, but it should mean that the US Attorney has enough evidence to get in front of a trial jury. 

The New York prosecutor jumped the gun on Mr. Strauss- Khan. The media reported that he was hoping to run for Mayor of New York and wanted the publicity. I do not profess to know his reasons with certainty. My complaint with the manner of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest is that there appears to have been zero work done on the credibility of the State’s evidence prior to his arrest. If the district attorney had done a small amount of investigation, he would have uncovered what he now is stating publicly - that the alleged victim is not a credible person. That does not mean the act did not occur. It simply means that he cannot take his case to a jury because he does not have the right kind of evidence that he can support.

So, what will happen now? The district court judge released Mr. Strauss-Kahn from house arrest. I do not know what other bail restrictions were lowered for him, but the dismissal from the prosecution should be coming soon. Where does that leave the United States? How about red-faced?

Is this a lesson for those of us who appeared so eager to accept the maid’s story as credible? It is easy to jump immediately to a conviction in cases of sexual assault. After all, why would a woman lie about that? In this case it could be money, publicity, attention, a twisted sense of need, or a combination of all of those things. If, in fact, a dismissal of all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn occurs, as seems likely, we owe this man an apology.

Which brings me back, briefly, to Casey Anthony and the burden of proof. In cases where the State is trying to terminate a parent’s parental rights - the most serious case in the world of Family Law - the burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence.” That evidence is weighed by the jury and the side who has the greater weight of evidence wins. That is a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a phrase that is not defined in our Penal Code. It is not the CSI phrase that is used in error - “without a shadow of doubt." Each juror must look at the evidence and form his or her own opinion whether the evidence reaches the highest burden of proof in our country, that of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my opinion that a capital murder trial where death is an option should not be decided on evidence that is loose or circumstantial. Apparently, the Casey Anthony jury agreed.

So, those of you who are amazed at the verdict, think again. The State decided to seek the death penalty against a woman without having evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, and these twelve individuals analyzed this evidence carefully and all twelve, unanimously, agreed that the proper verdict was not guilty. That does not mean she is innocent. It means the State could not give them enough evidence with which to convict, evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, which was their accepted burden. The jury did what they all believed was right.

Let’s put Mr. Strauss-Kahn and Ms. Anthony together. Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s case should have been investigated enough for the prosecutor to see whether he had sufficient evidence that could rise to that level of proof. The New York prosecutor has publicly admitted he has a problem with his evidence. The prosecutors in the Casey Anthony trial looked at their circumstantial case and believed that they could convince a jury that their evidence did rise to that level of proof. They just made a serious mistake because they underestimated the citizens who they helped choose to render a verdict.

photo credits: Parti socialiste, billaday

Tweet

Sniffing the Air

by Andrea Campbell

Most everyone I talk to is upset or depressed over the Casey Anthony case, which just recently found her not guilty in the death of her child. Since you would have had to been living in a cave to not know about the case, I will assume you are upset as well.

There is a lot to talk about the forensic evidence in this case, and what for me seems like quite a lot of evidence for a case of this type. But almost all of it seems to be controversial in one way or another. Since I write to you in colloquial terms—as if speaking to a friend—I try not to use terminology that is science jargon, and tend to explain things simply and in a way that anyone can understand.

Clipart.com

Types of Evidence
The first important element we can discuss is what types of evidence are used in a court of law. There are more than you may know: direct, circumstantial, biological, reconstructive, associative and, individual or class characteristics.

Direct evidence is thought of as established fact. These are generally eyewitness statements or confessions.

Circumstantial evidence is not absolute proof but provides general knowledge and if you connect the dots, would seem to make sense or act as a logical conclusion. Typically, forensic evidence falls into this latter category. To folks in the criminal justice industry though, forensic science is generally more reliable than direct evidence because eyewitness testimony is sketchy, with people unable to recall events or positively identify suspects.

Biological evidence is anything that comes from a living organism and, in this case, would be the hair found in Casey Anthony’s trunk—this evidence type stems from body functions or fluids shed at the scene.

Of course, physical evidence can be found on inorganic items and some examples are: fingerprints, tool marks, paint, firearms and so on.

Reconstructive evidence helps an investigator figure out the five clues: who, what, where, when and how. The door that was pried open tells us how the perpetrator got into the house for example.

Associative evidence is what ties the suspect to the crime scene. The Casey Anthony case could have been made a lot easier if fingerprints had been found on the duct tape that covered toddler Caylee Anthony’s nose and mouth.

And the typing of evidence, either individual or differentiating is referred to as class characteristics. It follows that anything that is individual, can be narrowed down to one person or calculated as belonging to a very small group of people. The principle used to analyze materials and come to the assumption that it is individual is that no two things are exactly alike. A pair of shoes will exhibit characteristics when worn, unlike any other—so if those shoes leave a print impression at a crime scene and they are later found in the suspect’s closet, that leaves them open for an individual characteristic.

Differentiating class characteristics, on the other hand, could be the type of bullet that came from a gun. The caliber matched to a gun could make for a possible murder weapon. A found .38 caliber bullet means the weapon size is the same, so a .38 caliber bullet differentiates it from a shotgun.

Experts thought the forensic evidence in Anthony's car would be pivotal evidence for the murder trial. The car tested positive for chloroform and human decomposition and a strand of Caylee's hair was found in the car's trunk. Also, a cadaver dog, Gerus,—trained to find human remains—alerted on Casey Anthony’s car, a Pontiac Sunfire, and his handler testified to that occurrence.

Forensic Air Testing
Today we will talk briefly about the air testing in the car trunk. The forensic community has been using air tests for a long time. The science of chemical detection is forensic toxicology and is a means to separate and analyze chemical substances. The best example of common testing is when law enforcement uses a Breathalyzer to determine the blood alcohol content in a drunk driver for example.

The Smell of Decomp
"Once you smell it, you will never forget it." This comment and others comes from a site that has anecdotal comments from police and others whom have all smelled death. Human decomposition is a permeating smell and is often said as “hard to describe” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t distinctive. When Dr. Arpad Vass went on the stand to testify about the air samples taken from Casey Anthony’s car, I assumed that evidence was more than compelling. He spent a lot of time explaining his expertise in research about the smell of human decomposition. Vass works at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee where he analyzes the odor of death by working with cadavers at a 3-acre body farm, specifically used to study death and decomposition.

According to an ABC news report, "He [Vass] is essentially working towards finding a signature for human decomposition that will lead to the creation of an electronic detector that does the work of a cadaver dog. His research is already being used by the FBI to create a database of the chemical compounds found in human decomposition."

Vass said that the air samples taken and preserved in a can from the trunk of Casey Anthony's car had an abundance of chloroform, a sign of human decomposition and a chemical that also can be used to commit murder.

"I essentially jumped back a foot or two… I was shocked that that little itty bitty can could have that much odor associated with it… I would recognize it as human decomposition," Vass told jurors.

The Body in Death
"After we die and the bacteria proliferate in our body and start breaking down our muscles and our fat and organs, vapors, gases, are formed with beautiful names like cadaverine and putrescine that are a particular structure that are easily picked up in the toxicology lab if they’re collected from the area, the air that the body was in," said respected forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden. "If there was a dead body in the trunk of the car and they collected the air sample, they should be able to find those chemicals."

Entomology Report
In addition, flies and fly larvae found in the trunk of Casey Anthony's Pontiac suggest that the body had been decaying there for three to five days, according to testimony by an insect expert. The entomologist believed that Caylee's body had already undergone a brief period of decomposition before it was put into the trunk, and he cited the presence of a gnat-like fly that appears only after a body has started to decompose. This testimony rebutted defense claim that bad smells people reported could have come from garbage, but it turns out the same type of fly is not attracted to household trash.

New Science Questions

Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, head of the Forensic Sciences Department at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told TIME. "It's what the state calls 'state of the art.' It's what I call 'not ready for prime time… It's not junk science, but it never should be brought into a courtroom at this stage.”

I disagree. Most cases today are decided on circumstantial evidence. There was enough forensic evidence—dueling experts or not—to come to the correct assumption and connect the dots. Casey Anthony's car was a crime scene. And I think the jury just wasn’t listening and strained (and failed) to understand the principle of reasonable doubt. What do you think?

Tweet

Casey's Future Not As Profitable As She May Think

by Stacy Dittrich

Many are speculating what happens next for Casey Anthony as her date to be set free draws near. I predict they let her out a few days early without alerting the media for security purposes. You can bet your roll of duct tape that this Lord of the Rings fairy (sorry, can’t get past the pointed ears) has her future completely mapped out. I’m pretty confident that the following conversation took place between Tinkerbell Casey and Jose Biased upon the not guilty verdict—or something similar. Just imagine the two of them sitting alone in a room, Casey smiling from pointed ear to pointed ear.

Casey: Jose, I can’t thank you enough (grabs tissue and dabs at a non-existent tear). I knew this would turn out this way, I just knew it!

Jose: You can thank me later, doll face (winks), you know, like you used to back in the old days.

Casey: Gawd, this is really happening. When we decided to throw my dad under the bus, I never thought they’d buy it—I really didn’t! I mean, I knew the jury looked like a bunch of morons, but it turned out they really are! Pinch me. I must be dreaming!

Jose: Ya know, Case, your mom did help you out a little when she lied about the chloroform searches. You really should thank her when you get the chance.

Casey: Oh, please! To Hell with her! The only thing she’s done for me was teach me how to lie like a pro…maybe I’ll send her a card for that? On second thought, no way. I’m famous now; I won’t need their house and money anymore.

Jose: Which brings me to the future…I’ve already got offers coming in. What do you think you’ll do?

Casey: I definitely want to have more children—that’s for sure! But, believe me, I’ve learned my lesson! From here on out, when I go clubbing, I am definitely going to use less chloroform on the kids. I swear I will never going through this again (shudders). Maybe I’ll try using Benadryl first? Definitely no more duct tape—I’ll switch to electrical. So, what are the offers? A million dollar book deal? Movie? I’m so excited!

Jose: Whoa! Slow down there, Superstar! (Laughs) We’ll get to that! You never told me what you thought about the “grief expert” I put on the stand. I can’t even believe I was able to pull THAT one off!

Casey: Where’d you find her?

Jose: She was just a homeless nutcase I found wandering around Jay Blanchard Park mumbling to herself. I cleaned her up, bought her a Mocha Soy Latte—dumped half a dozen Valium into it—and told her what to say on the stand. Voila! It worked! (Slaps knee).

Casey: You truly are a genius, Jose. I mean, attending the third worst law school in the country and having a criminal record, how you pulled this off is simply unbelievable.

Jose: Again, you can thank me later (winks again). Now, let’s get to those offers. I’ve got a book deal from Beaufort Books—they published OJ’s, a guaranteed hit—an offer for a featured stripper tour in Gary, Indiana, a 3-movie porn deal from Murderous Mom’s Porn Company and, “the big one,”…are you ready?

Casey: Tell me! Tell me!

Jose: Charlie Sheen wants you to be his newest Goddess!

Casey: Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Charlie Sheeeeeeen! (Jumps up and dances around). I can’t believe it! (Pauses). Um, what’s a Goddess?

Jose: Oh, I forgot, you’ve been out of touch for awhile. I’ll fill you in on the deets later, but isn’t this exciting!

Casey: Yes! Tell me! How many millions?

Jose: Uh, well, you see, it’s not exactly millions…the total of the offers comes to $8,000.

Casey: (Smile fading, Casey becomes angry and rises in her chair) $8,000!! That’s it! I killed my daughter and all I get is $8,000! What is the matter with you? I’m bigger than OJ! I’m getting letters from millionaires with marriage proposals and all you can do is $8,000! (Picks up nearest chair). 

Jose: Casey, calm down! Put the chair down! Listen! If you knock off another kid in the next year or so, I promise I’ll get you the millions! I promise! Maybe we can get you on Celebrity Rehab for a murder addiction…just please calm down!

Casey: That’s better, (puts chair down). We need to be realistic about this though. I could probably get away with killing just one more—but after that, I might actually go to jail, so you better stick to your word!

... Now, most importantly, where can I find a sperm donor?

Jose: You’re looking at him, sweetheart.

**Okay, so maybe it didn’t happen exactly that way. But, I’ll bet I’m pretty close… sometimes dark subjects require a little humor to make it through.

Tweet