Jurors in the Casey Anthony trial were said to be “sick to their stomachs” after acquitting Anthony of killing her 2-year old daughter, Caylee.
Was their decision right? Or were they wrong? Or were they just doing their job?
"I did not say she was innocent," juror Jennifer Ford said to ABC News. "I said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine the punishment."
Wtsp.com reported the jury consisted of seven women and five men. One was a male high school health/physical education teacher related to a member of law enforcement. Another was a 57-year-old single male Verizon worker with no children.
Another was a married woman whose father worked in law enforcement, along with a married male IT worker with two children. There was also a female married Publix cook with two children. One male was the married father of two, whose little girl is Caylee Anthony's age, while another is a 53-year-old single retired man.
There was also a 41-year old divorced woman with no children, who works with an agency dealing with child welfare. And there was a 70 years old woman who performs counseling, a single woman, a retired woman, and a 32-year old single woman unfamiliar with case details.
NPR says that juries don't see the same court case as the rest of us.
The jury system was created so that average citizens can judge people accused of a crime: not officials or higher-ups. They said justice will succeed when those normal people on the juries realize that if they take their responsibilities seriously they are free to make decisions they know will be unpopular.
York defense attorney Dawn Cutaia told the York Daily Record there wasn’t enough evidence. “Death-penalty juries are harder to reach an acquittal. They typically are pro-law-enforcement. I've found that juries make mistakes, but not as often as people think."
Cutaia also felt that the television audience learned more evidence than the jury. Some was considered inadmissible.