Casey Anthony...It Could Have Been Worse...She Could Have Gone Home!!!

Okay, I guess, since I have been listening to it in my office for days now, I shall weigh in on the Casey Anthony Case.  God help me!  Allow me to address the issues of how she was prejudged first, and then describe how she could have been even better off (like she would have walked out of the courtroom when they said “not guilty” better) had she followed a couple of basic rules.

Casey Anthony got a fair trial by all accounts that I have read and seen.  Twelve jurors heard every shred of legally admissible evidence presented by the prosecution and found her not guilty.  Clearly she was tried in the press and by the public well before any evidence was presented.  Not surprisingly, an almost mob mentality started to take over.  She was presumed guilty from the outset for any number of reasons not relevant to whether she did or did not kill her daughter.  Among these is the fact that she did not behave “appropriately” during the period that her daughter was “missing” and presumably dead.  She partied until the wee hours of the morning with friends.  Prior to Caylee going missing Casey is alleged to have brought her toddler daughter to nightclubs with her.  Caylee slept in the car while her mother danced the night away.

Casey Anthony is alleged to have practiced bisexuality, engaging in lesbian affairs and been indiscriminant in her sexual liaisons with both men and women and combinations of the two.  How much more titillating can you get?  By the same token, what in the world does it have to do with her guilt or innocence?  I will acknowledge and admit to having had a pretty wild past.  I shall not titillate you with the details, but let us say has a certain X-rated quality to it.  Does this make me a killer or a premeditated murderer?  I would like to think not, but who am I?

No one will ever describe Casey Anthony as a nominee for Mother of the Year, for the above reasons, but the fact that that you suck as a mom does not make you a killer either, in most cases.  In this case the prosecution failed in their duty to prove, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter.  In fact, they failed on even a more basic level. 

Given as true every single fact brought out at the trial, the prosecution failed to prove that the theory presented by the defense could not have been true.  In other words, the prosecution was not able to prove the death could not have occurred in a way consistent with Casey Anthony’s innocence.  The way the laws of the United States are designed to be interpreted, if you can come up with a scenario that is consistent with all the facts and is also consistent with the Defendant being not guilty, you have to find her not guilty, because it could have happened that way.  It is hard to put into words, but if a man comes in from outside and he is soaking wet, there are many ways he could have gotten that way.  It could be raining, he could have walked through the sprinkler, or he could have been in the shower with the woman next door.  Until you can rule out all the other explanations, in a court, you have to go with the explanation that is consistent with not guilty.

Quite frankly, I am rather proud that the jury did not succumb to what was incredible public and media pressure to convict the woman.  They have said, since the verdict, that they did not say she did not do it, but that the prosecution did not prove the case sufficiently to find her guilty, much less make a sentencing decision.  The jury system is specifically designed to act as a check on the prosecutor and, in combination with the burden of proof and the limitations placed on the prosecution as the representative of the government, they hold the government to a very high standard of proof, and so they should. 

We come from a history of abuses by a tyrannical government.  Each and every day we see other governments abuse the human rights of their citizens in kangaroo courts in which the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the government.  We live in a country that tries to make it as difficult as possible to convict an innocent person.  In spite of this fact, since 1973, 138 men have been released from death rows in 26 states based on the grounds that they did not commit the crime for which they were sentenced. 

Unfortunately, we no longer live in a society that believes that it is better to let ten guilty persons go free than convict one innocent person.  We now believe that the one innocent person needs to take one for the team so those ten go to prison and we feel safer.  I would argue that you will feel perfectly fine with this until it is you or your son or daughter that randomly gets selected to be the one that takes one for the team.   It is much easier to allow some other not guilty person go to prison than you and yours.

The other thing that could have made a bunch of people just roll their eyes is if Casey Anthony had walked out of the courtroom a free woman on Tuesday.  This could have happened and let me tell you how.

In my wallet, I carry a card on which is written the following:

Dear Law Enforcement Officer:

Several years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that law enforcement agents were justified and authorized to lie to suspects and potential suspects during questioning.  As a result, nothing the police say can be relied upon as correct or accurate.  Accordingly, I have made the decision not to provide any information to, nor communicate with any law enforcement officer or agent without my attorney present.  Please consider this an invocation of my rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  I refuse to discuss any matter of any kind or nature with you.   Further, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the right of citizens of the United States not to be required to produce identification upon the demand of a law enforcement officer.  My named is William A Miller and my date of birth is MM/DD/YYYY.  This is sufficient information to adequately identify me.  The name of my attorney is XXXXXX X. XXXXXX and his phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX.  Please contact him regarding any request for information.

I have done nothing wrong and do not wish to engage in any conversation of any kind with you for any reason.  This is a formal request that I not be detained any further, that I be allowed to leave immediately and that any and all property, papers and/or possessions be returned to me immediately.  Should you refuse to allow me to go about my business, I consider myself to be under arrest and reiterate my invocation of my Constitutional Rights.  I request that you allow me to immediately contact my attorney.  Should I answer any questions, I do so only as a result of acquiescence to and fear of your authority as an armed law enforcement officer.

If you are on my property without a Warrant, I request that you leave immediately, as I consider you to be committing the crime of Trespass after Warning in violation of Chapter 810, F.S.  This document constitutes an official notification which is required to be retained in your law enforcement records in this case.  DESTRUCTION OF THIS NOTICE IS A THIRD DEGREE FELONY UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 918.13(a).

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

/s/

May 5, 2002

When Casey Anthony was initially questioned regarding the whereabouts of her daughter, she merely had to invoke her right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment and let her attorney do the talking for her.  She would not have been in a position to give the police false information as she would not have spoken to them, except, presumably, through her attorney.  Thus, no felony counts of providing the police with false information.  She would have walked out of the courtroom when she was found not guilty of the murder.

The police read you your rights when you are questioned, after you have been taken into custody.  In part they will tell you, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”  The ONLY thing that cannot be used against you is your invocation of your right against self-incrimination or right to counsel.  So, the government, in this case, was in the position of “if we can’t get you one way, we’ll get you anther.”  As my friend and Attorney Dean L. Willbur, Jr. says (and has on t-shirts, as a matter of fact), “Keep your mouth shut and you won’t get caught!”  This is true for both criminals and fish.

Faith and Politics....A Dangerous Mix

Faith, as I was taught, is having no rational, provable, empirical proof or reason for believing in something.  The myriad of religions in the world are the example of believing based on faith alone. 

There is no empirical way to prove the existence of God.  Yes, we occasionally have the individual that sees the Virgin Mary in a taco shell or Dorito™ or something, and believes it to be some sort of Devine intervention, but if you boil it down, it is all faith.  It is also a matter of faith as to the Divinity of known persons, like the Prophet Mohammed or the belief that God speaks through anyone specific, like the Pope.  

I happen to believe in God, but I also recognize that it is faith and not an empirical fact.  I believe what I believe because I believe it and take God as a matter of faith.  While I believe in the Bible, I do not have absolute faith in it as some do.  I do have faith that the Bible provides us with some accurate accounts, in the Old and New Testaments, on which we can base our belief in God and Jesus Christ, but I am not one to be absolutely certain.  There are things that I question.  I also recognize that others are clearly more devout believers in their versions of faith than I, and I accept that one of us might be wrong, and this is where things can get a bit sticky.

There was a great scene that in the television series “West Wing” in which fictional President, Jebediah Bartlett spots a radio call-in show host called “Dr. Laura Jacobs” (I suspect she was a fictionalized version of the Conservative radio talk-show host “Dr. Laura Schlessinger”).  The President asks her for her qualifications to offer advice to listeners that call in to her show and she informs the President that she has a PhD in English Literature.  He also asks her to answer several questions after she confirms that the [Christian] Bible holds that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).  The soliloquy by the President goes as follows:

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”

The point is that Christian faith follows the teaching of the Bible and the Bible must be read with, for lack of a better term, some discretion, as indicated by the questions asked by the fictional President of the United States.  I think most documents of faith must be read with discretion.  The Koran, The Torah, even the different versions of the Christian Bible must be read with an understanding that they are historical and come from a different time.  While it may once have been acceptable to sell one’s daughter into slavery, or stone a man for planting two different crop side-by-side, not so much anymore, and it must be adapted to modern times.  You kinda have to cherry pick for the applicable stuff.

Documents like the Bible must be viewed from the perspective that they are books of faith and, if you believe in them, fine, but there are those that have opposing viewpoints and do not have the faith in them that some do.  I do not expect to ever change the beliefs of a person that says, “The Bible says it.  I believe it, and that’s it.”  It is faith and you can’t really argue about someone’s faith, especially with such a strongly held belief.  However, when someone starts to use faith as a logical argument for passing laws that affect everyone, whether they have the same beliefs or not, that is a serious problem. 

There are those among us that use their faith as a basis for all of their decisions.  This is a wonderful thing for them, but please note, I said for them.  If they wish to practice their faith in a manner that guides everything they think, say or do, I will defend their right in our country to practice that faith, to a point.  However, when their faith begins to impact me, my rights, my freedoms or my actions, or is illegal, we are going to have a problem.  We are going to have a problem if there is an impact on the rights of others as well.   There is even a problem with the “illegal” part of my argument.

 There are those, contrary to what they would tell you, or have you believe, that think this is an almost purely Christian nation and, while I agree this country is a predominantly Christian nation.  They want to adopt Christianity as a defacto official religion in this country.  They want to make sure that it is Christian Law that has the power in this country and that all decisions are made based on Christian morality and ethics.  The most extreme example of this is ever-increasing number of Conservatives and Conservative Politicians who have stated that they openly disapprove and would fight against Sharia Law becoming a basis for any law in this land and even view it as unacceptable as a code of personal conduct as well.  Like most religious laws, there are good points and bad points, just like the Bible and Christian Law.  I do not believe that either should be the basis for the law of this secular society, as all religion and religious law has its problems.  The Conservatives of this country are now engaged in a latter-day Holy Crusade by other (political) means, and that scares the Hell out of me.

People have lost sight of the fact that the United States in not, in fact, a country of only majority rule alone.  We are country of minority rights as well.  Conservatives are incredible in their ability to drone on about what the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution.  The strict constructionists and literalists would have us believe that anything not written, word-for-word, within the four corners of The Constitution does not and should not exist in law.  However, The Founding Fathers wrote the first ten amendments to The Constitution which was referred to as a “Bill of Rights” by no less than Thomas Jefferson.  He was, in fact, extremely surprised that The Constitution was originally adopted by The First Constitutional Convention with no Bill of Rights.  Interestingly, the proscription against the establishment of religion and the exercise thereof, is the very first line of the First Amendment.  It is, in fact, the very beginning of the Bill of Rights.

There are Conservatives that are quick to point out that Thomas Jefferson was not present at The First Constitutional Convention (He was Minister to France from 1885 to 1789).  However, the fact that he was not present actually works out better for us students of history, as Jefferson’s input to the content of The Constitution is all in writing.  In his correspondence to members of the convention he was vehement in his belief that there be a “wall of separation” between church and state, and this belief was maintained after the ratification of The Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”  He went into greater detail in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in which he said,

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized (sic) only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]* Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

*The bracketed section is not contained in the letter as posted, but is contained in the original draft kept by Jefferson and contained in the National Archives.

We are a secular nation, not a religious nation.  Those who profess the belief that we are a Christian nation, conveniently ignore those parts of The Constitution, the Bible and history that are inconsistent with those beliefs.  This kind of intellectual dishonesty makes them true believers and that kind of faith makes them very dangerous.