The trial that never ends comes to an end.

[Stonewall]

State fucked the case up from the beginning by filing it as a death case.  While you are more likely to get a conservative/pro-law and order jury by seeking death (people opposed to the death penalty are disqualified from sitting on death penalty cases) you also raise the bar on what such a prospective jury wants to hear.  When the stakes are execution, people want to be convinced of guilt more than they ordinarily would be.

This case was severely lacking in evidence of foul play.  There was none.  Zero.  Zilch.  Dead kid.  No idea how she died.  When the prosecution's own witnesses admit on cross examination that they don't know how someone died, how do you honestly expect a jury make that decision?  The State's argument boiled down, in its simplest form, to "tot mom was crazy and didn't act normally and killed her kid because she wanted to party."  What a joke.  There are half a dozen ways that she could have gotten rid of her kid and still partied.  Left her with the loving grandparents.  Baby sitter.  Adoption.  Simply turned her over to the state.  Murder is a massive stretch.  And if you're going that route, you better have something more than "mom got a tatoo."

It didn't help that the entire family came across as creepy as shit.  All of them.  Mom, dad, brother, daughter.  All of them acted oddly.  This case had coverup tattooed all over it.  But coverup for what?  No causation = no conviction.

This was a negligence case at best.  And if it had been charged as such and pursued as such, I'll bet you that a jury would have been much more receptive to the evidence than they were when State is trying to kill the defendant.

[Barrister]

If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?

[Razgovory]

If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?

In the South they have a little chart with color swatches as an indicator for these types of things.

[Stonewall]

If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?

Who the victim is, is but one of many "aggravators" that exist to justify a death sentence.  Others include but are not limited to whether the killing was cold, calculated and premeditated, the native of the killing, i.e was it heinous, atrocious or cruel, or depraved. My point with this case is and will continue to be, before you can get to execution you have to actually have a murder.  When the case is virtually non-existant on causation, there is simply no way to prove the CCP and HAC aggravators, which are, historically, almost always required in order to justify a death sentence in Florida.

This was a manslaughter/negligence case from the beginning.  The prosecutors were bullied into the courtroom by a media frenzy and people like Nancy de Money and tried to substitute raw emotion and hatred towards the defendant in place of evidence of criminal activity and it bit them squarely in the ass. 

Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence.  Because that  disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free.  The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me. 

[Neil]

That this was ever brought to trial is a travesty.  She should simply have been executed during her arrest.

[HisMajestyBOB]

That this was ever brought to trial is a travesty.  She should simply have been executed during her arrest.

[Barrister]

Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence.  Because that  disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free.  The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me.

Okay, so I haven't followed this case one bit, but I did read the relevant wikipedia page.

Sometimes an aquittal is better than a bad plea, and 'neglect of a child' would be a bad plea.  Either mom is responsible for the girl's death, or she is not.  There's no half way stop.  I think it sounds more like a manslaughter than a murder, but beyond that I wouldn't fault the prosecutors.  It's a tough case that the public rightly demands be taken to trial.  But there's no shame in not winning a tough case.

[Rasputin]

the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.

on a big, complex,  high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?

these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...

[Josephus]

the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.

on a big, complex,  high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?

these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...

[Barrister]

the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.

on a big, complex,  high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?

these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...

Too many big words?

Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board.  Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.

[Malthus]

the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.

on a big, complex,  high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?

these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...

Too many big words?

Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board.  Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.

I think the point here is that for lengthy jury trials, the people you would want to be jurors all find excuses to avoid the duty. 

[Josephus]

How easy is it to get off a jury? I was summoned once but was a student at the time, and that's an exemption. But otherwise? I know my sister in law, who has a pretty good job (head of accounting for a City department) and kids, was not exempt from a fairly lengthy, high-profile case in Toronto some years ago. Or did she not try hard enough?

[Rasputin]

the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.

on a big, complex,  high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?

these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...

Too many big words?

Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board.  Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.

I think the point here is that for lengthy jury trials, the people you would want to be jurors all find excuses to avoid the duty. 

correct; legitimate excuses

it creates a paradox whereby the more complex the case, the less qualified become the jurors

[HVC]

Or did she not try hard enough?

This

[Stonewall]

Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence.  Because that  disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free.  The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me.

Sometimes an aquittal is better than a bad plea, and 'neglect of a child' would be a bad plea.  Either mom is responsible for the girl's death, or she is not.  There's no half way stop.  I think it sounds more like a manslaughter than a murder, but beyond that I wouldn't fault the prosecutors.  It's a tough case that the public rightly demands be taken to trial.  But there's no shame in not winning a tough case.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge.  The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump.  "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win."  I guess I just don't understand that mindset.