CASEY ANTHONY VERDICT REACHED... ANNOUNCEMENT 215PM

The whole thing is reasonable doubt. You establish that, you've made your case. People just cannont figure out "reasonable"

"Could aliens have abducted Caylee and killed her?"

"That's insane"

"Is it POSSIBLE?"

"Well, maybe one chance in Hell"

"So, IT IS POSSIBLE? AHA!"

Beyond a "reasonable" doubt.  Aliens.....I'd say that crosses the line of reasonable. 

"Could your husband have kidnapped Caylee and killed her?"

"That's insane"

"But, is it possible"

"Maybe one chance in Hell"

"So, IT IS POSSIBLE?"

Fixed it for ya......................

Any money she gets is more than likely already been spent... If you know what I mean...

I really hope the above is merely a knee jerk reaction and/or hyperbole... anything beyond that makes you extremely ignorant.  I will take a system that makes the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, where you are innocent to proven guilty, where they would rather have 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent rotting in jail than any other system.  Please take just a few minutes and educate yourself on many other judicial systems before you make comments like this.

Good Lord I am not even beyond the second page and I find another ignorant statement.  Do you know what double jeopardy is?  Do you know what our appellant system is like?  Do you know that if you appeal a verdict that the Court can only consider the transcripts of testimony and the evidence presented at trial.  They have to find a reversible error under extremely difficult circumstances to allow for a mistrial to be declared and a new trial to be granted.  If a mistrial is granted and a new trial is given then the first trial is like it never happened.  However, given that indeed this went to a jury and a jury came back with a not guilty verdict I would be BEYOND shocked if an appellant court overturned the jury's decision and superceded with their own opinion.  This would be a first to me but to say that double jeopardy attaches pending an appeal is very ignorant.

My bad, guess you can't read  , Here you go.   

And the worst thing is that Casey Anthony can never be retried for the murder of Caylee. Even if absolutely irrefutable evidence were to turn up or Anthony herself were to confess to the crime, the rule of double jeopardy applies. The rule of double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. The rule is designed to make sure the prosecution gets it right the first time.

If Casey were to tried again, she can plea that she had been legitimately acquitted by a court of the same offense, which sets out special reasons by which trial cannot go ahead. In many countries the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right; these include United States, Canada, Mexico, and India.

In fact, even if Casey chooses to make some money by confessing to her crime or write an OJ Simpson-style "If I Did It" type book nothing much can be done to convict her. Since Anthony was found not guilty, laws that prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes also do not apply. Casey Anthony can give paid interviews, pose for Playboy or simply tell everyone she killed her child, and the public will have to sit back and listen. Casey Anthony could potentially make millions of dollars in book, television and movie deals.

Interesting.  There are law school cases where it has been overturned but I didn't know that was the process.  Good to know.  Hopefully I will never have to know personally as I can assure you I don't do a lick of criminal law (civil law only) so I will never find out professionally.

Guess that is why you throw out ignorant statements.....

My comment was when double jeopardy attaches.  Clearly she can be tried again but very hard for that to happen.  I knew there was a way just didn't know the process but as I mentioned in my post and depeche mentioned in his post EXTREMELY rare instances.  Remember I said I would be SHOCKED if she was retried.

agreed,        just no need for him to slam me and be a dick about it, and when he is wrong not even apoligize, a simple My bad would be ok.

Thanks for the assist Kap.  In fairness to madshooter I was just a little annoyed after reading those two back to back comments and probably should not have taken it out on him.  I should have known better and just stayed out of this thread as I knew people would just be making general comments because emotions run high in cases like this.  I on the other had never rush to judgment because I was not there personally and did not review all the evidence.  That being said I was a little surprised by the verdict as a casual observer but never once would I impose my own opinion over that of the jury.  BOL!