MEDIA CONTACT INFORMATION
For media inquiries or to request a LegalZoom press kit, please contact:
Johanna Namir
LegalZoom.com, Inc
323-962-8600 x2310
press@legalzoom.com
LEGALZOOM NEWSLETTER
Sign up for our monthly newsletter, always packed full of helpful tips and informative articles.
Article Center
Why Can’t Some Juries Convict on Circumstantial Evidence?
-
Nov 2011
The jury's finding that Casey Anthony was not guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter Caylee had many people confused as to how she “walked free” (not withstanding her convictions for lying to authorities). There were similar feelings when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in 1995. On the flip side, however, 10 years later, many spectators rejoiced when Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn child.
What do these high-profile murder cases have in common? All three juries were presented with a mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of conviction—but only one, the Peterson jury, found that proof of guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt. How is that possible?
The bottom line is that in each case, it was up to the members of the jury—as agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense—to weigh all the evidence presented and come to its decision. Indeed, this is the job of every criminal trial jury. And while different juries on the same set of facts and evidence could come to different conclusions, they all operate under the same judicial framework, as described below.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
As you probably know, the standard of proof in criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged to the extent that no reasonable person could have a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Types of Evidence
The prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by building a case through direct and/or circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence “directly” shows the defendant's guilt, for example, a witness who testifies he saw the defendant committing a crime. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is indirect evidence that may lead to the inference that the defendant committed a crime even though there is no direct proof, for example, a washcloth with the murder victim's DNA found at the defendant's house if the two didn’t live together.
Of course not all circumstantial evidence is created equal; some is stronger or weaker than others, and this is where jury discretion comes in. It is up to the individual members to weigh the importance of each piece of evidence and then come to a conclusion together as to whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
One other important fact about circumstantial evidence: you may have heard somewhere that "there's only circumstantial evidence," implying that such proof isn’t enough to support a conviction, but that simply isn’t true. A defendant may be found guilty of a crime based solely on direct or circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.
Jury’s Role in Criminal Trials
As noted above, a jury’s job is to weigh all the evidence presented at trial. The jury is permitted to draw inferences from evidence, so long as they arise from proven facts and are logical and reasonable—they cannot be based on speculation. Indeed, juries are instructed that legally speaking, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence and Reasonable Doubt in Action
Taking the Anthony case as an example, the prosecution’s theory was that Casey Anthony used chloroform to suffocate her daughter. Unfortunately for the prosecution, though, the state of decomposition of Caylee’s body prohibited a definitive determination on the cause of death. Moreover, the prosecution had no “smoking gun” for the chloroform theory such as a bottle of the organic compound with Casey Anthony’s fingerprints on it. That could have been strong circumstantial evidence of guilt, but it just didn’t exist.
What the prosecution did have was Internet searches for information on chloroform from a computer in the Anthony house and traces of the substance in the trunk of her car. While the jury could have drawn an inference that these taken together, along with the fact that Anthony didn’t report that her child was missing for a month, proved that Casey Anthony used chloroform to suffocate her daughter—but they just didn’t feel they could find as such beyond a reasonable doubt.
At least one jury member has stated that the prosecution’s failure to definitively establish a cause of death created doubt in their minds. Moreover, regarding the chloroform specifically, Casey’s mother testified that it was she who had performed the searches, and an expert forensic witness for the defense refuted the prosecution’s experts’ testimony that claimed “shockingly high” levels of chloroform in the trunk by saying he only found low levels of it.
Accordingly, the jury concluded it was left with reasonable doubt regarding Anthony’s guilt of the most serious crimes charged and had no choice but to find her “not guilty.” Whether this decision was reasonable is likely to be debated for years to come.
Final Thoughts
It is important to note that our justice system is one that is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and Blackstone’s formulation that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
Thus, the burden of proof for the prosecution is quite high; sometimes even with amazing advancements in technology, prosecutors aren’t able to convince a jury that the defendant’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt—and sometimes the public disagrees with that decision. But public opinion doesn't matter to the justice system, and where there's reasonable doubt in the jury's collective mind, there simply can be no conviction.
Most Viewed in More Crimes & Trials
Oct 2007
Jan 2010
Comments
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 5:47AM
Let's not assign full fault to the jury. The prosecution charged Casey with murder in spite of the fact that even their own experts could not confirm that the child was murdered. I think Casey Anthony is disgusting as a parent but the murder charge could not stand.
Submitted by on Nov 10, 2011 - 6:35PM
My granddaughter was sexually molested for 5 years by her step-father and finally after she turned him in and went to her school counselor, she was taken by CPS to a hospital and her father and step-mom went to Florida to get her. She was 15 years old. Before she left the house, she grabbed a t-shirt of hers and wipped some semon from the floor that belonged to him and was found by the forensic dept. of the police department to be positively his. The police failed to go into her bedroom and do an investigation. Her mother doesn't believe her and testified against her in trial. Amazing the proscecutor and defense only called my granddaughter to testify and kept her on the stand for a day and a half. The verdict was non-guilty and he is free and back in the home to molest his own daughter who just turned 10. My granddaughter is now living with her dad and step-mom and doing fabulous. Her reaction to the verdict was that at least she had used her voice and there are a lot of girls that do not get that opportunity. This was in Florida and after Casey Anthony case was over, they knew they probably were in the wrong state as they have a terrible record of failure to the children who are mollested by monsters like him. Can any thing be done?
Anonymous
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 11:23AM
This is the first time I've received the newsletter...Very useful information.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 11:51AM
IS there reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony had something to do with her child's death?!
I'm disappointed that she wasn't convicted even on a lessor charge.
If she didn't do it, then who? This is an unsolved crime then.
Has there never been a conviction when exact cause of death isn't known?
This means that a smart criminal can strangle or stab a person and just hide the body until it completely decomposes.
As long as there is no other real evidence, they go free because cause of death can not be found.
I think the jury were cowards and were not paying attention to all the evidence.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 1:38PM
I never like our justice system. Here are 12 ordinary people, some have not finished high school, obviously will
not understand any of the scientific and technological terms
being used in the majority of the criminal cases. Yet, we expect them to understand what the prosecutor and the defense are talking about. Also, we expect these jurors to
understand the law connected to the crime. Legal terms being used by both prosecutors and defense are so complicated that most of these juros use the opening or closing statements as they are easier to understnd to make their decision. Example is the Casey Anthony case. the 11 juros elected a teacher to be their foreman. They thought that this man is an "academic teacher" not realizing that he
is a GYM TEACHER". aS he admitted in his TV interview that "he orchestrated the whole scenerio." He admitted putting a lot of emphasis on the opening remarks of defense attorney. He put GEORGE ANTHONY on trial instead of Casey.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 2:18PM
Mike Nifong, ex D.A., Durham, N.C. and Mark Furman, ex LAPD detective (most noted liar in the O.J. case)and the prosecution team that used him, left me leaning toward the defense. I too, believe in the trade off of letting the 10 guilty go free opposed to convicting 1 innocent person. Had I been on the Scott Petterson case, I would have hung it because of the shadow of doubt belief. The other two cases were correct decisions based on the same belief. There is no room for errors in these serious matters! This is why I belong to and believe in the Innocence Project.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 2:36PM
The circumstantial evidence presented in the Anthony trial was enough for me to convict. What other explanation could there have been. That would be the reasonable doubt.
Casey Anthony did not report her daughter missing for a month....that isn't suspicion enough to have "reasonable doubt"? The mother covered for her about the Internet searches for Chloroform. No doubt in my mind for that. Even if there was a minute amount of Chloroform in Casey's car - that also would be enough for me - what would any Chloroform be doing in her car?? The explanation of her possibly having trash in her car to create the chloroform...if a stretch.
The fact that she asked a neighbor to borrow a shovel?! Come on!! What else would you need?
One of my theories is, Casey wanted to go out to a function, she had her daughter - mom and dad wouldn't or couldn't babysit. She looked up on the Internet how to knock her daughter out, then put her in the trunk of her car, while asleep, so Casey could go out on the town.
But....as the grandfather said...something went terrible wrong. Meaning, Casey gave her daughter too much Chloroform - taped her mouth shut, just in case she woke up too soon - then died of Chloroform and/or suffication.
Case closed.
Casey Anthony should be charged with a civil case, at the very least now.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 4:46PM
All evidence is CIRCUMSTANCIAL, except for a "credible" eyewitness who actually witnessed the criminal event. Most(90% & up?) cases are won using circumstantial evidence.
Does any jury of one's peers really understand the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? CSI-type shows have made jurors experts on matters of guilt/innocence and what is or is not reasonable doubt concerning the evidence presented.
Best evidence or not, case presentation is clearly more important than irrefutable evidence of the crime.
Submitted by on Nov 3, 2011 - 10:51PM
Thank you for this article.
I recently served on a jury on a first degree murder case. We (the jury) felt the defendant was guilty but the prosecution had absolutely no evidence. There were several "witnesses" but not one description was identical. Apparently he changed clothes three times at the murder scene. It was a very emotional decision and caused me to have lots of sleepless nights wondering if we made the right choice in setting him free. Thanks for explaining the definition of circumstantial evidence.
Submitted by on Nov 4, 2011 - 7:31AM
The author points out that that both sides, prosectution and defense, agreed on these juries. Although they may all operate under the same framework, the only difference is that all juries are not equally interested in justice. If the prosecution is lax in jury selection the defendant walks,regardless Read the gleeful comments following the OJ case.
Submitted by on Nov 5, 2011 - 11:48AM
the oj case was a joke when he tried on the pig skin gloves that had the victimes blood on them that when pig skin gets wetand dryes it shrinks that was a magor factor in his case susan i beleive is guilty hiding the whereabouts of her child from her pearents not caling the police .guilt is the answer i belive.children are our most loved in our country for they shall see god .
Submitted by on Nov 5, 2011 - 5:51PM
I think those 12 jurors should be ashamed of themselves! It seems that they had neither the courage nor the intellect to come to the appropriate conclusion.............GUILTY!
Submitted by on Nov 15, 2011 - 7:11AM
I was put in jail for a crime that never happen, and the jury was tamper with and and one would listen to me on what's going on.I am still fighting this case 'til this day..I already did 24 months out of 15 to 30 months.My case is in the superior court as I speak.I am in dier need of an attorney, to show ineffective from my attorney on this case.Because after the only witness (the officer)got on the stand and told the truth..(that he did not see a hand-to-hand my attorney (a P.D.)wrote something on his pad and lay it on the laged for the jury to see,3 of the men look at it and then look at me.I ask what was on that pad.He then took the pad and gave it to the DA which he then put it under his paper work. Their was nothing that shows a crime took place.Once the officer said he did not witness WHAT he said he witness (which lead to my arrest) my attorney was suppose to ask for the case to be dismiss.I am in need of some help...my due date for my brif is Dec 28,2011
Please note that we can’t answer legal questions in the article comments. If you have a specific legal question, click here to connect with an attorney.