Jury Trials - Why The Verdict May Not Be What The World Wants

Posted By Thomas V. Wallin || 13-Jul-2011

When the verdict was read on the Casey Anthony case, the world went into an uproar, deeming the justice system as corrupt.  For anyone who had watched a glimpse of the trial or read up on it, they were certain that Casey Anthony was guilty.  

However, jury trials are not designed to seek justice for the victim; they are meant to look at the facts, evidence and all that's available that provides the jury with enough proof to convict an individual.  

Regardless of what type of offense a person is on trial for, it is imperative that the jurors follow the justice system rather than rely on public opinions.  Many individuals are quick to say a person is guilty, whether they are on trial for murder or even for driving under the influence.  

An article on Slate explains the differences between what the world wanted versus how the jury system actually works by saying "The Casey Anthony jurors felt that the prosecution left too many open questions and failed to prove guilt under the extremely high standard required by law. They wanted a motive and a cause of death. America wanted revenge. The jurors wanted proof of Casey Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. America wanted justice for Caylee. Underlying the difference between these two goals is the fundamental premise of the American system of justice: avenging innocent victims matters less than protecting innocent defendants."

For more information regarding trials for California DUI cases, contact our California DUI Defense Attorneys today; we are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to answer any questions that you may have.