Public's guilty verdict grossly unfair

Most people don't seem to care to understand that when you are on trial for something, you are one person with a hopefully good lawyer fighting an enormous, aggressive legal system with unlimited financial resources.


Add to that legal Mount Everest the emergence of charismatic, recklessly relentless, prosecutorial character assassins such as Nancy Grace with unlimited resources to "examine" your case before a worldwide audience 24 hours a day -- turning a majority of public opinion against you, making it increasingly difficult to find people for juries that don't hang on Grace's every precious word.

Then it's a miracle Casey Anthony isn't currently appealing a death sentence. She does have to live in hiding, though, doesn't she?

Is Casey Anthony guilty? All I care about is the actual legal verdict. She was kept in prison for three years while prosecutors were unable to find enough evidence to convict her. But the seemingly ever-rising public affection for people such as Nancy Grace convicting people night after night on television, rather than letting our actual legal system handle it, bothers me.

I can envision a day where I might be sitting in a prison cell, an officer steps in tells me I've been convicted without one of those needless trial thingies simply because Nancy Grace is convinced I'm guilty -- and who could possibly need more than her honest opinion?

Everyone thinks wrongful convictions are the worst, such as a person released after 20 mistaken years in prison. Yet the Casey Anthony trial is glaring, ironic evidence that a determined broadcaster can get anyone convicted -- if not actually, then at least in the public's mind.

How little so many seem to care how deathly wrong this phenomenon is and could be -- that is, until Ms. Grace's little light gets turned onto them.


Fri, 08/18/2017 - 02:40

Rename expressway

Fri, 08/18/2017 - 02:39

Ask: What if …?