I realize there is a bunch of controversy about this case and it certainly has captured the public's attention. I was one of the very few pundits who prognosed she would walk.
However, the issue of whether lawyers should go on TV and analyze a case in progress, predicting outcome has come to a head. Thanks to the Anthony case, this issue will be the new debate at law school (and the ABA) come Fall.
"Anthony" defense Attorney Mason hit it on the head when he chastized the media and those attorneys who prostituted their profession for some un-earned plubicity. He rightfully called them "Bastards". Bastard in the sense of illigitimacy i.e. an illigitimate offspring of the legal profession. Precisely, Lawyers do not take the Bar to become TV commentators. At least I don't think so. Do you?
Here is why Anthony walked pure and simple. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, a mountain that would have to be shifted to furtile ground i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. Lead defense attorney Baez knew from the outset that mere circumstantial evidence opened the door to otherwise outrageous defenses. He thought outside the box. He created or built the Mountain, impossible to move. All he did was raise or CREATE a plausable scenario that COULD BE. Could be? Yes, could be. The jury bought it - REASONABLE DOUBT. Baez is a rising star.
I want to make my position perfectly clear. I watched closing arguments very closely. I think ANTHONY was guilty but remember it is the first impression and more importantly the last sales pitch that the jury will likely take to the jury room........................Also, the attorney must relate to the jury. Baez did this very well. The prosecution did not.
The prosecution did NOT convince me to the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Anthony murdered her daughter. The prosecution was talking to the bench on closing, not the jury and not to me. On the other hand Baez cleverly talked about the "real world" in which anything can happen. Baez talked to the jury, not the bench.
This may sound like circular reasoning but give it some serious thought. The prosecution did not prove its case. Like it or not, justice was served. Why? Because the next person to go on trial for murder could be you and all the evidence points toward you even though you are innocent. You have been set up by the Government. Would you like to have the "Anthony" jury? OUR SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT BUT IT WORKS.