Casey Anthony Case Study

In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way.

Whether one particular person happens to be a defendant, a witness, a friend, or even just an acquaintance, murder cases weigh heavily on everyone involved. Huge amounts of evidence must be analyzed, people must be interviewed, research must be done, and a case must be made. Ultimately, all this work comes down to one decision: convict or acquit. The case of Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland is no exception. Syed, at the age of nineteen, was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus thirty years. However, from the day the case ended, people have had doubts about the verdict. Holes in the state’s argument slowly became more apparent. For example, the state placed a massive amount of trust

A case that is widely known by all of America due to large media release and documentary presentation on Netflix, is the case of Steven Avery displayed as “Making a Murderer”. Steven Avery, a man from Wisconsin and son of the owner of Avery Junkyard was accused and convicted of the 2005 death of Teresa Halbach, 25, of Wisconsin. Avery was sentenced to life in prison due to evidence found by Wisconsin Law Enforcement and Manitowoc County Sheriff Department. This case involves speculation, subjectivity, and countless opinions involving whether Steven Avery actually committed the act or was wrongfully accused due to being disliked by the community. These concerns have been raised

As detectives continued their search, they found a Human Skull that belonged to a child about a half of a mile from where Casey lived; aswell as bones. Police stated that they are sure that Caylee is not alive, and that the remains do infact belong to her. (Timeline of Casey Anthony Trial, ABC News Internet Ventures). This became the saddest part of the trial for all people, including the judge, police , family and detectives. Prosecuters later in the trial announced that they will infact start to seek a death penalty on Casey. (CNN Library, Latest News, Cable News Network).

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

Allowing Martin to use a cart, aside the walking rule, is not a modification that would change the nature of the game. The purpose of the walking rule is not compromised by allowing Martin to use a

I believe that a defendant in a high profile case can indeed get a fair trial, although there could be times where they may not have a fair trial. However, there have been many high profile cases such as the O.J. Simpson, The Casey Anthony, and the George Zimmerman cases. These cases were highly televised to include the trial. The Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman both brought public outcries, and protester all the way. In these cases the defendants were fount not guilty by the jury. It is said that the issue of pretrial publicity and fairness brings two constitutional principle head to head (Cevallos, 2015). According to Cevallos, who is a legal analyst “Courts must balance the freedom of expression guarantee of the First Amendment against

There was no smoking gun; by the time the remains were found decomposition had taken the ability to recover the lungs or other organs that could have proven the cause of death. I believe that due to the "CSI effect", the jury wanted a picture of Casey Anthony killing her child so they could have their "smoking gun." However, as mentioned above the three elements of the crime were fulfilled, but the defense presented the case in such a way that they created that reasonable doubt, resulting in the not guilty

I am writing to you because I am a petrified citizen. I am concerned because of the many recent cyber attacks that have happened. Many other people are probably very worried about their information being put out there on the dark web too.

A highly publicised criminal case can subsequently initiate expert and public research into the reasoning behind crimes and the certain motives or influences behind the offenders actions. The horrific case of Jill Meagher occured in September of 2012. Her Murder took place in the suburb of Brunswick, Melbourne, where she was abducted, brutally raped and murdered in a dark laneway. This particular case received a high level of media coverage across Australia resulting in public outrage and uttermost disgust towards Jill’s murder, Adrian Ernest Bailey.

The media can have many different interpretations of cases in the criminal justice system. In most cases, they have a time slot for an episode or movie that they have to fill which can limit what parts of the case are realistic and which parts have to be altered in order to create the televised illusion of a quick and easy result. There are many misconceptions about the process of how the cases are ran. In this paper, I will provide examples of cases that the media have used or interpreted in television, what happened in the real life case & in the televised adaptation that were the same or similar, what was altered in order to meet the guidelines for media, and how it can alter and effect the perceptions that people have about the criminal

“We find the defendant guilty as charged.” With these words, a boy lowers his head in disappointment—disappointed at the competence level of his hometown. He watched an entire trial attentively and implemented his father’s teachings; always walk in the other man’s shoes, always be honest and fair, always show compassion; and yet he just saw the most overt form of injustice—the conviction of an innocent man. Suddenly he completes the last steps of the journey to being an adult.

Based on a true story, “The Accused” was first released in 1988 and tells the story of a woman, named Sarah, who was raped by three men in a bar, in front of people. She later sought revenge on her three rapists and also people who were encouraging them that night. At first, the men only received a small sentence; but Sarah wasn’t satisfied with their punishment. She later fought hard to get witnesses testify in her favor which finally led to her “victory”. Her attorney Kathryn was in charge of the case during the whole process. However, Sarah’s story has raised many questions: did the bystanders owe her a legal duty? What are the criminal omissions, legal and moral duty that can be highlighted in her case?

On April 12, 1987, Michael Morton sat down to write a letter. 
“Your Honor,” he began, “I’m sure you remember me. I was convicted of murder, in your court, in February of this year.” He wrote each word carefully, sitting cross-legged on the top bunk in his cell at the Wynne prison unit, in Huntsville. “I have been told that you are to decide if I am ever to see my son, Eric, again. I haven’t seen him since the morning that I was convicted. I miss him terribly and I know that he has been asking about me.” Referring to the declarations of innocence he had made during his trial, he continued, “I must reiterate my innocence. I did NOT kill my wife. You cannot imagine what it is like to lose your wife the way I did, then to be falsely accused

In society, we have an obligation to our community to defend it by using judgment to determine a person’s innocence or guilt. It is a civic responsibility to make an informed decision that is determined based on evidence to help come to a logical conclusion. This essay argues that judgment in Twelve Angry Men is addressed by the jury who think rationally against a 16 year old kid facing the death sentence.