Why it was a Good Thing Casey Anthony was Acquitted

If you haven't heard about the case against Casey Anthony, then you probably live under a rock. Casey Anthony is an Orlando, Florida mother accused of murdering her own child. While this heinous crime has taken the worldwide media by storm over the last three years, it wasn't until July 5^th that the jury passed its verdict--not guilty--and spurred a huge boom in media attention.

Most people on the street were in shock at the outcome of the trial. How could a jury not convict Casey Anthony? From the evidence promoted by the prosecution, it seemed like a sure fire bet that she would be convicted of first degree murder. News outlets and media personages like Nancy Grace have dominated the story with tales of lies, partying and bad parenting. From what we've seen, Casey Anthony is a bad parent.

But is that the whole truth? A prosecutor's job is to prosecute. They use a number of tactics to control the case from the get go. The media circus that evolved from this case was one of the biggest tools the prosecution used. By releasing the prosecutions claims about Casey Anthony that she was a liar, a bad mom and a murderer to the media, immediately tainted the jury pool in the area. As the media took off with the story and it gained national attention, the national jury pool was tainted as well.

For three years, we were inundated with the story of Caylee Anthony's death. The constant association with the prosecutions side of the story has been pounded into our minds. This dangerous one way media coverage proved to most people that Casey Anthony was guilty before she was proven innocent--even before the trial started.

As a Florida resident, father of a little girl and a writer for news outlets around the world, I was intrigued about this case in more ways than one. But the one thing that stood out in this case was not because she was innocent or guilty, but the way people assumed that she was guilty. The prosecution used the media to bias the American people into expecting a guilty verdict.

Myself included, I only know of 13 people who thought she was innocent of murder. Thankfully, those other 12 people were on the jury of this historical trial. While some of the evidence seemed to point towards her guilt, the prosecutions case was full of holes. The prosecution made a dangerous and unconstitutional gamble on their part--they tried to make the jury base their decision on emotional content and not the facts.

And that is why I think that this case is monumental in the decision made. The jury--those twelve people of our society--made the right decision based on the facts. They chose to put aside the momentum of the media blitz and view the facts as they were presented. And for that, I commend the jurors of this case.