In his opening statement, defense lawyer Jose Baez laid out a strategy that began with the bombshell claims that Caylee drowned in the family pool, that her body was found by her grandfather George Anthony who then helped dispose of the body.
Casey Anthony lied for months about her daughter's death because she was "trained to lie" through years of sexual abuse by her father and brother, Baez stated.
What was the point of that opening if they didn't call witnesses to support it? Did they intend to but the judge didn't let them? Or was it a strategy geared towards getting at least one juror to believe it, so that in the event of a guilty verdict, it would cause that juror to reject the death penalty?
And did the defense raise enough reasonable doubt as to whether anyone murdered the child?
However, there is no DNA evidence linking Casey Anthony to Caylee's remains, and the cause of death is "homicide by undetermined means." The defense claims that without knowing the exact way in which Caylee died, there's no proof that Caylee was murdered. They claim her death resulted from an accidental drowning.
While the jury will be instructed that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence and they can make inferences based on the facts presented to them, the defense will argue the state hasn't proved facts, it is asking them to pile inference upon inference to arrive at a guilty verdict.
If the state didn't prove the child was murdered, the verdict should be not guilty. If the jurors think it's more likely than not the child was murdered, but it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they are required to return a not guilty verdict.
But what if they find beyond a reasonable doubt the child was murdered and Casey Anthony is guilty? As the prosecution reminds every jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt. Thus it's possible for the jury to return a guilty verdict even though they aren't 100% certain.
Can the defense argue in the death penalty phase that a less than 100% certainty is a reason to reject the death penalty? Since the State is unwilling to accept the burden of proving Defendant’s guilt beyond all doubt, by definition the standard of proof for guilt is less than 100% certainty. If the jury thinks she's 98% guilty of the crime, can the defense use the 2% difference to argue in the penalty phase that there is "residual doubt" which while enough for guilt, is not enough for the death penalty?
The Supreme Court has said death is different from other lesser punishments. For one thing, there is the extreme finality of a death sentence.
Residual doubt has been used very effectively in other states to save a defendant's life. But Florida courts have held a defendant has no constitutional right to argue residual doubt. So how does the defense get around that? By introducing in opening the suggestion that she was sexually abused which caused her to lie and that her grandfather is a shady character?
I have no idea, as I've said, I haven't followed the trial. But if Casey Anthony is found guilty, I think the death penalty phase will be interesting.
