Casey Anthony & Jamie Leigh Jones Verdicts: Was Justice Served?

By now, everyone is aware that Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder and child abuse charges.  Casey Anthony was charged with murdering her daughter, Caylee Anthony.  A Florida jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both the murder and child abuse charges.

Jamie Leigh Jones worked for Halliburton/KBR, a contractor for the federal government, when, according to Jones, she was raped and sodomized by her co-workers in Iraq.  Halliburton tried to avoid going to trial by claiming a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract prevented her from filing a lawsuit.  Eventually, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Jones would have her day in court.  Jones' case finally went to trial and resulted in a verdict for the defense.

Both of those cases resulted in outcry from the public.  People just could not understand how a jury could have let Casey Anthony go free on the murder charge.  People also could not understand how a jury could have ruled against Jones when she claimed she was raped and sodomized by her co-workers.  What has gone wrong with the jury system, many ask.  the answer is simple:  the jury system WORKED in both cases.  Let's analyze both cases.

Casey Anthony Case

This was a criminal case where the burden of proof was on the State of Florida to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of murder and the crime of child abuse.  The jury determined that the government had not proven each element of the crimes charged.  Therefore, the jury had no choice but to acquit her.  The jury did not find that she didn't kill Caylee.  The jury did not find that she didn't abuse Caylee.  That was not the jury's job.  The jury simply found that the government had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jamie Leigh Jones

This was a civil case.  Jones was required to prove each element of her case by a preponderance of the evidence.  That is a lesser burden than the burden in a criminal case.  The jury did not find that Jones was not raped.  The jury did not find that Jones was not sodomized.  That was not the jury's job.  The jury simply found that Jones had not proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Where is the justice?

We have to remember that in Casey Anthony's trial, there are only twelve people in the entire world that heard all of the evidence that the judge allowed in the case and heard none of the evidence (or news commentary) that was not allowed into evidence.  Those twelve people are the only ones, therefore, that were in a position to judge the case as the law required.  No other individual (with the exception of the alternate jurors who agreed with the twelve jurors) can claim that they hear all that was supposed to be heard and did not hear anything that was not supposed to be heard.  Those twelve unanimously agreed that only one verdict was the correct verdict under the law.  They rendered that verdict.  Thus, justice was served as the rule of law was upheld.

So too in Jones' trial.  We may not agree with the outcome.  We may not like the outcome.  But none of us can say we heard all of the evidence that was admitted and none of the evidence that was excluded and none of the news commentary that was not a part of the trial.  Only Jones' jury had that unique opportunity.  That jury rendered its verdict and justice was served there as well.  

The system worked because the system was designed to insure that none of us, whether a defendant in a criminal trial or a defendant in a civil trial, should be judged by innuendo, rumors, news commentary, etc.  We should be judged by our peers--by a jury--the only ones that get to hear all the proper evidence but don't hear what is not proper evidence.  We have the best judicial system in the world.  It's not perfect.  But it is the best that mankind has ever devised.